Budget Deficit
For 2011 the budget deficit has gotten worse by $165 million since the budget was originally written last year. Receipts are $54 million worse than expected and outlays are $111 million higher than expected.
The deficit of $1.645 trillion could actually go higher when the final tally is made at the end of the fiscal year. The deficit for 2011 is now close to both the cumulative deficit of $2 billion during the 8 years of GW Bush's presidency. It is also close to the total outlay of $1.789 trillion of Clinton's final budget in 200.
| President | Year | Receipts | Outlays | Surplus or Deficit (−) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton | 2000 | $2,025,191 | $1,788,950 | $236,241 |
| GW Bush | 2001 | $1,991,082 | $1,862,846 | $128,236 |
| GW Bush | 2002 | $1,853,136 | $2,010,894 | -$157,758 |
| GW Bush | 2003 | $1,782,314 | $2,159,899 | -$377,585 |
| GW Bush | 2004 | $1,880,114 | $2,292,841 | -$412,727 |
| GW Bush | 2005 | $2,153,611 | $2,471,957 | -$318,346 |
| GW Bush | 2006 | $2,406,869 | $2,655,050 | -$248,181 |
| GW Bush | 2007 | $2,567,985 | $2,728,686 | -$160,701 |
| GW Bush | 2008 | $2,523,991 | $2,982,544 | -$458,553 |
| Obama | 2009 | $2,104,989 | $3,517,677 | -$1,412,688 |
| Obama | 2010 | $2,162,724 | $3,456,213 | -$1,293,489 |
| Obama | 2011 estimate | $2,173,700 | $3,818,819 | -$1,645,119 |
| Obama | 2011 original | $2,228,000 | $3,708,000 | -$1,480,000 |
| Obama | 2012 estimate | $2,627,449 | $3,728,686 | -$1,101,237 |
The typically optimistic prediction is that the deficit will decrease in 2012 to $1.1 trillion. I always feel that these prediction should come with a warning. The president is predicting a 21% increase in revenues which hasn't happened since 1969. At the same time he is predicting a 2.4% drop in outlays, which hasn't happened since 1955.
Almost every budget by any president usually gets worse as the year goes on. The glaring exception was Clinton, where receipts were much better than he predicted near the end of his 2nd term.
We may see the first truly post racial presidential election in 2012. The cry in pain and fear of meltdown may overshadow both race and party.
| Obama | 2011 estimate | $2,173,700 | $3,818,819 | -$1,645,119 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obama | 2011 original | $2,228,000 | $3,708,000 | -$1,480,000 |
The latest estimates have the deficit set at -$1,280,000 for 2011. An improvement keeping at about last year's level. No word how much is reduced spending and how much is higher than expected revenue.
Quote: matildaIt is my understanding that Bush's wars were off the books and Obama's budget includes them.
My gosh, are we still blaming Bush for Obama's total failure as POTUS?
Please cite a source for this. I find such a statement hard to believe. All receipts and outlays must be accounted for, a reason the budget deficit skyrocketed when TARP was passed.
FWIW, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia (yeah, I know, I know...) regarding the US Federal Deficit comparing the years 2008 with 2009. Take from it what you will.Quote: AZDuffmanMy gosh, are we still blaming Bush for Obama's total failure as POTUS?
Please cite a source for this. I find such a statement hard to believe. All receipts and outlays must be accounted for, a reason the budget deficit skyrocketed when TARP was passed.
2008 vs. 2009
In October 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave the reasons for the higher budget deficit in 2009 ($1,410 billion, ie. $1.41 trillion) over that of 2008 ($460 billion). The major changes included: declines in tax receipt of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[73] The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.[74]
The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were: 1) accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations; 2) assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation; 3) accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and 4) anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear.[75]
Quote: AZDuffmanMy gosh, are we still blaming Bush for Obama's total failure as POTUS?
Why should that surprise you? Even the earthquake was Bush's Fault.
Quote: TheNightflyFWIW, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia (yeah, I know, I know...) regarding the US Federal Deficit comparing the years 2008 with 2009. Take from it what you will.
2008 vs. 2009
In October 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave the reasons for the higher budget deficit in 2009 ($1,410 billion, ie. $1.41 trillion) over that of 2008 ($460 billion). The major changes included: declines in tax receipt of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[73] The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.[74]
The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were: 1) accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations; 2) assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation; 3) accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and 4) anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear.[75]
I always wondered why spending on military is not considered stimulative while spending on other things is. If spending = stimulus, then shouldn't we get in more wars to create more government spending? Shouldn't we spend to upgrade our military? Isn't contracting with American defense companies a way of "investing in America"?
Note that any answer other than "Hey, you're right, let's keep spending on military and wars to stimulate the economy!" exposes the fact that whoever says otherwise doesn't really think government spending is stimulative, and/or that they don't think American companies are worth investing in. That means that when they say that "We need to spend/invest in America," what they really mean is "We need to spend on programs I like and not spend on programs I don't like." Holding that view is fine, but trying to wrap it up in some objective way means you're full of horseshit.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerQuote: TheNightflyFWIW, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia (yeah, I know, I know...) regarding the US Federal Deficit comparing the years 2008 with 2009. Take from it what you will.
2008 vs. 2009
In October 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave the reasons for the higher budget deficit in 2009 ($1,410 billion, ie. $1.41 trillion) over that of 2008 ($460 billion). The major changes included: declines in tax receipt of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[73] The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.[74]
The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were: 1) accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations; 2) assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation; 3) accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and 4) anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear.[75]
I always wondered why spending on military is not considered stimulative while spending on other things is. If spending = stimulus, then shouldn't we get in more wars to create more government spending? Shouldn't we spend to upgrade our military? Isn't contracting with American defense companies a way of "investing in America"?
Note that any answer other than "Hey, you're right, let's keep spending on military and wars to stimulate the economy!" exposes the fact that whoever says otherwise doesn't really think government spending is stimulative, and/or that they don't think American companies are worth investing in. That means that when they say that "We need to spend/invest in America," what they really mean is "We need to spend on programs I like and not spend on programs I don't like." Holding that view is fine, but trying to wrap it up in some objective way means you're full of horseshit.
I would argue that past wars were more stimulative than current/future wars have been/are likely to be. Not only was there greater inventory depletion in past wars (for example, in WWII, fighter plane production barely met demand,while in the last decade only a handful of planes have been lost), but the pre-war stock level was also lower in past wars than it is now (thanks, cold war).
Basically, I think that one of the side-effects of gigantic peace-time military spending is a reduced stimulative effect during war time because there is a decreased change in the production level required to support a war.
Quote: rxwineWho said all government spending is equally good without weighing what it is we are investing in?
Good point. One obvious problem with military spending is that we seem to be very good at selling our old equipment to our future enemies. That problem doesn't exist with environmental programs, job retraining programs, etc.
Quote: AZDuffmanMy gosh, are we still blaming Bush for Obama's total failure as POTUS?
Please cite a source for this. I find such a statement hard to believe. All receipts and outlays must be accounted for, a reason the budget deficit skyrocketed when TARP was passed.
Mr Duff: if you listened to anything except Fox, you would be aware of what to others is common knowledge. I am not blaming Bush, I am just stating the well known fact that his administration cooked the books. This has been known for at least 8 years. Where have you been? There was not a full budget appropriation for the Bush wars. The next time you attack me, I suggest you do some homework so you do not appear to be a complete idiot.
Quote: rdw4potusI would argue that past wars were more stimulative than current/future wars have been/are likely to be. Not only was there greater inventory depletion in past wars (for example, in WWII, fighter plane production barely met demand,while in the last decade only a handful of planes have been lost), but the pre-war stock level was also lower in past wars than it is now (thanks, cold war).
Hopefully someone can answer this question.
In WW2 government outlays were staggeringly high. By 1943-44 outlays were 43% of the GDP of the nation. Even today outlays are around 25% of GDP.
I assume we were paying interest on the national debt which increased during the war.
We ran a slight deficit in 1939 and 1940 when the war was raging in Europe. It got much worse in 1941 when we declared war. Then it went through the roof from 1942-1945 as we were fighting, But there was only a single transition year in 1946. By 1947 the US government was back to running a surplus. And that surplus got huge in 1948.
| Year | Receipts | Outlays | Debt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1940 | $6,548 | $9,468 | $50,696 |
| 1941 | $8,712 | $13,653 | $57,531 |
| 1942 | $14,634 | $35,137 | $79,200 |
| 1943 | $24,001 | $78,555 | $142,648 |
| 1944 | $43,747 | $91,304 | $204,079 |
| 1945 | $45,159 | $92,712 | $260,123 |
| 1946 | $39,296 | $55,232 | $270,991 |
| 1947 | $38,514 | $34,496 | $257,149 |
| 1948 | $41,560 | $29,764 | $252,031 |
While it is not surprising that the government would run a huge deficit for WW2, my question is how did we recover so fast?
Quote: pacomartin
While it is not surprising that the government would run a huge deficit for WW2, my question is how did we recover so fast?
I suggest that because consumption was suppressed during the war years--rationing of basic consumer goods, money earned then was and could not be spent, but wages were accumulated from the war production effort. In 1946 when goods were again produced, there was a large pent up demand ready to be satisfied. In addition, the returning troops added demand from monies from governement programs such as the GI Bill of Rights. Meeting this demand created taxable income to reduce the deficit.
Quote: rxwineWho said all government spending is equally good without weighing what it is we are investing in?
I guess the same kind of person who says money isn't fungible. Money actually is fungible, though, so ...
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThat means that when they say that "We need to spend/invest in America," what they really mean is "We need to spend on programs I like and not spend on programs I don't like." Holding that view is fine, but trying to wrap it up in some objective way means you're full of horseshit.
When you say "what it is we are investing in," it couldn't be any closer, without using the actual words, to "spend on programs I like."
QED.
Again, it's fine to hold that view, but don't try to say that it's objective as regards the stimulative effect of spending. It's the view I hold. Clearly, government spending does not necessarily = stimulative. If it did, then it's political suicide to not pass more and bigger government spending packages. But instead, it's political suicided to do that exact thing.
I would argue that a dollar taken out of the economy by the government and then spent on something done by a private contractor puts money (back) in the economy and has a chance to be stimulative, while a dollar taken out of the economy by the government and then kept under the government umbrella by giving it to some weird (and historically inefficacious) social program is still out of the economy and has no chance to be stimulative.
I can see some dollars being better at stimulating than others (as their route back around the loop is quicker). I also think spending for the sole reason to stimulate is like masturbating to keep warm. Yeah, you feel better, but you've not really achieved something to help yourself long term.
Spending in a slump to improve infrastructure seems like a very good idea to me... and that spending should scale back during a boom as private industry heats up and can supply jobs and growth.
Quote: thecesspitI'm not sure I follow that line of logic (and it seems to be a good example of your caveat of spending on programs you like :)). A dollar spent paying for an government outreach worker or a dollar spent on a private contractor to run an after school program will go around the same sort of loops. The government spends money on wages, infrastructure and resources, much as the private contractor does. I'm not sure why the private contractor dollar is more or less likely to be stimulative than the government employee (per se...).
I can see some dollars being better at stimulating than others (as their route back around the loop is quicker). I also think spending for the sole reason to stimulate is like masturbating to keep warm. Yeah, you feel better, but you've not really achieved something to help yourself long term.
Spending in a slump to improve infrastructure seems like a very good idea to me... and that spending should scale back during a boom as private industry heats up and can supply jobs and growth.
The private contractor running an after school program is private, so it's similar to my example and seems like you follow the logic just fine.
The premise is, government as an entity is not part of the private economy, it's its own "economy," and the private economy is insanely more productive and stimulating than the government economy. That means, when government taxes a dollar, that dollar is not in the private economy to do its work there. Instead, it's in the government economy and its stimulating power is greatly diminished and even removed. Again, pointing to stimulus packages ... if they worked, then they would be trying to do more. But they're not. That fact cannot be disputed (if you're sane). The reason why they're not is that government economy spending isn't stimulative.
I get the thinking behind it, especially in bad times where government spends to update infrastructure. But that kind of spending was done in spades from 1933-1941 and never really worked. It was WWII that got us out of the depression, not Roosevelt's alphabet soup of government spending. We didn't exit the depression in 1937, we exited it after/during the war. Clearly, the war meant government spending in the private sector, as opposed to government spending back into the government umbrella. War spending ended up stimulating in 4 years, while 8 years of alphabet soup program spending did not.
Government has to tax some, and there will be some friction. Where the mistakes are made is that government spending should be done as a charitable matter, like on after-school programs, school lunches, etc. I think there is some government role for things like that, but I also see (and I think any sane person would see) that taking that thinking WAY too far has led to where we are now. Americans are by far the most generous people on earth. If you let them be generous with private charities - without all the government friction and without taking the money out of the private economy - then there's no doubt you'd see improvement in both the conditions of the impoverished and the financial health of the government.
If someone asks me why I think the government shouldn't be responsible for charitable work, my first question is, what are their donations to charity? With very few exceptions, they say they don't/can't/whatever give to charities. Also, they are not open to seeing their taxes go down and them donating that "savings" into a charity. Their quality of life wouldn't change, but they won't do it. Why not? Because they want a better quality of life. People who think this way want nothing different than people who think similarly to me - better quality of life. But for some reason, find it very difficult to write checks to charities instead of government. Why they trust government, with its litany of examples of waste, inefficiency, and corruption, over charities - some of which are very reputable and enduring - was something I never understood, in and of itself.
It does, though, make sense if you assign nosiness and control to it. But the desire of any segment of the population to control the entire society is NEVER a good reason to pursue certain policies and philosophies. In fact, it's an excellent reason to NOT pursue them.
Quote: matildaI suggest that because consumption was suppressed during the war years--rationing of basic consumer goods, money earned then was and could not be spent, but wages were accumulated from the war production effort. In 1946 when goods were again produced, there was a large pent up demand ready to be satisfied. In addition, the returning troops added demand from monies from governement programs such as the GI Bill of Rights. Meeting this demand created taxable income to reduce the deficit.
Possibly, but the reductions seem to be in outlays, not a large increase in receipts. So even though the debt had increased by a factor of five with resultant higher interest payment, the real trick seemed to be that they were able to fire all of those civil servants. I guess they willingly left and took jobs in the private sector or they went home and had babies.
So even though outlays were a whopping 43% of GDP, the overall debt was not that high, and they were able to dismantle government when it was no longer needed. The era of the eternal government agency was not yet born.
| Year | Receipts | Outlays | Debt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1940 | $6,548 | $9,468 | $50,696 |
| 1941 | $8,712 | $13,653 | $57,531 |
| 1942 | $14,634 | $35,137 | $79,200 |
| 1943 | $24,001 | $78,555 | $142,648 |
| 1944 | $43,747 | $91,304 | $204,079 |
| 1945 | $45,159 | $92,712 | $260,123 |
| 1946 | $39,296 | $55,232 | $270,991 |
| 1947 | $38,514 | $34,496 | $257,149 |
| 1948 | $41,560 | $29,764 | $252,031 |
Quote: pacomartinPossibly, but the reductions seem to be in outlays, not a large increase in receipts. So even though the debt had increased by a factor of five with resultant higher interest payment, the real trick seemed to be that they were able to fire all of those civil servants. I guess they willingly left and took jobs in the private sector or they went home and had babies.
So even though outlays were a whopping 43% of GDP, the overall debt was not that high, and they were able to dismantle government when it was no longer needed. The era of the eternal government agency was not yet born.
Year Receipts Outlays Debt 1940 $6,548 $9,468 $50,696 1941 $8,712 $13,653 $57,531 1942 $14,634 $35,137 $79,200 1943 $24,001 $78,555 $142,648 1944 $43,747 $91,304 $204,079 1945 $45,159 $92,712 $260,123 1946 $39,296 $55,232 $270,991 1947 $38,514 $34,496 $257,149 1948 $41,560 $29,764 $252,031
What happens in the next 6 years? Do outlays spike again when the war in Korea starts?
I don't think that they fired civil servants, I think they fired soldiers. All those GIs went back to their private-sector jobs and came off the Government's payroll...
Quote: pacomartinPossibly, but the reductions seem to be in outlays, not a large increase in receipts. So even though the debt had increased by a factor of five with resultant higher interest payment, the real trick seemed to be that they were able to fire all of those civil servants. I guess they willingly left and took jobs in the private sector or they went home and had babies.
Maybe that was the reason for the increase in receipts??
The BLS says that 145,000 workers were laid off en masse in July 2011. That's (statistically) 72,500 incomes that could've been taxed. I always wondered how anyone believed that a failure to implement pro-business policies could possibly improve tax revenues. Or, I always wondered which rich guy's taxes were going up to make up the 72,500 taxes just to maintain receipts (never mind the extra needed for spending increases).
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe private contractor running an after school program is private, so it's similar to my example and seems like you follow the logic just fine.
I'm saying either spend on private contractor OR on government employee. Different types of spending (private/public) to the same net effect. I don't see the logic tat says that the same dollar will be slower if it's spent publically. The dollar still goes into the economy as a whole. It's not in some mystical other place, someone is still working and get a wage.
I'd argue that the 1930's alphabet soup had a huge, long lasting impact on the US infrastructure that you still have today and should be glad off.
I think there are people who want to do more stimulus packages. I also don't think you can keep stimulating all the time, and it's not necessary logic step that doing X all the time will work all the time. Especially not in economics (e.g. one stimulus package may be a good thing, but another one close after has no effect... just like one tax cut could raise net reciepts, but a second one reduces net reciepts).
Quote: rdw4potusWhat happens in the next 6 years? Do outlays spike again when the war in Korea starts?
I don't think that they fired civil servants, I think they fired soldiers. All those GIs went back to their private-sector jobs and came off the Government's payroll...
There doesn't seem to be a big spike in the Korean War. Even the Vietnam War doesn't seem to grow the debt much (as a % of Gross Domestic Product). Gradually the debt works down until it's under 50% by 1956, and until the last few years it blows past 50% and up to 70% of GDP.
After 1964 the deficit seems to zoom on election years, as it becomes more common to campaign by giving out government money.
| Year | Receipts | Outlays | Deficit | Debt $ | Debt % GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1940 | $6,548 | $9,468 | -$2,920 | $50,696 | 44.2% |
| 1941 | $8,712 | $13,653 | -$4,941 | $57,531 | 42.3% |
| 1942 | $14,634 | $35,137 | -$20,503 | $79,200 | 47.0% |
| 1943 | $24,001 | $78,555 | -$54,554 | $142,648 | 70.9% |
| 1944 | $43,747 | $91,304 | -$47,557 | $204,079 | 88.3% |
| 1945 | $45,159 | $92,712 | -$47,553 | $260,123 | 106.2% |
| 1946 | $39,296 | $55,232 | -$15,936 | $270,991 | 108.7% |
| 1947 | $38,514 | $34,496 | $4,018 | $257,149 | 96.2% |
| 1948 | $41,560 | $29,764 | $11,796 | $252,031 | 84.3% |
| 1949 | $39,415 | $38,835 | $580 | $252,610 | 79.0% |
| 1950 | $39,443 | $42,562 | -$3,119 | $256,853 | 80.2% |
| 1951 | $51,616 | $45,514 | $6,102 | $255,288 | 66.9% |
| 1952 | $66,167 | $67,686 | -$1,519 | $259,097 | 61.6% |
| 1953 | $69,608 | $76,101 | -$6,493 | $265,963 | 58.6% |
| 1954 | $69,701 | $70,855 | -$1,154 | $270,812 | 59.5% |
| 1955 | $65,451 | $68,444 | -$2,993 | $274,366 | 57.2% |
| 1956 | $74,587 | $70,640 | $3,947 | $272,693 | 52.0% |
| 1957 | $79,990 | $76,578 | $3,412 | $272,252 | 48.6% |
| 1958 | $79,636 | $82,405 | -$2,769 | $279,666 | 49.2% |
| 1959 | $79,249 | $92,098 | -$12,849 | $287,465 | 47.9% |
| 1960 | $92,492 | $92,191 | $301 | $290,525 | 45.6% |
| 1961 | $94,388 | $97,723 | -$3,335 | $292,648 | 45.0% |
| 1962 | $99,676 | $106,821 | -$7,146 | $302,928 | 43.7% |
| 1963 | $106,560 | $111,316 | -$4,756 | $310,324 | 42.4% |
| 1964 | $112,613 | $118,528 | -$5,915 | $316,059 | 40.0% |
| 1965 | $116,817 | $118,228 | -$1,411 | $322,318 | 37.9% |
| 1966 | $130,835 | $134,532 | -$3,698 | $328,498 | 34.9% |
| 1967 | $148,822 | $157,464 | -$8,643 | $340,445 | 32.9% |
| 1968 | $152,973 | $178,134 | -$25,161 | $368,685 | 33.3% |
| 1969 | $186,882 | $183,640 | $3,242 | $365,769 | 29.3% |
| 1970 | $192,807 | $195,649 | -$2,842 | $380,921 | 28.0% |
| 1971 | $187,139 | $210,172 | -$23,033 | $408,176 | 28.1% |
| 1972 | $207,309 | $230,681 | -$23,373 | $435,936 | 27.4% |
| 1973 | $230,799 | $245,707 | -$14,908 | $466,291 | 26.0% |
| 1974 | $263,224 | $269,359 | -$6,135 | $483,893 | 23.9% |
| 1975 | $279,090 | $332,332 | -$53,242 | $541,925 | 25.3% |
| 1976 | $298,060 | $371,792 | -$73,732 | $628,970 | 27.5% |
| 1977 | $355,559 | $409,218 | -$53,659 | $706,398 | 27.8% |
| 1978 | $399,561 | $458,746 | -$59,185 | $776,602 | 27.4% |
| 1979 | $463,302 | $504,028 | -$40,726 | $829,467 | 25.6% |
| 1980 | $517,112 | $590,941 | -$73,830 | $909,041 | 26.1% |
| 1981 | $599,272 | $678,241 | -$78,968 | $994,828 | 25.8% |
| 1982 | $617,766 | $745,743 | -$127,977 | $1,137,315 | 28.7% |
| 1983 | $600,562 | $808,364 | -$207,802 | $1,371,660 | 33.1% |
| 1984 | $666,438 | $851,805 | -$185,367 | $1,564,586 | 34.0% |
| 1985 | $734,037 | $946,344 | -$212,308 | $1,817,423 | 36.4% |
| 1986 | $769,155 | $990,382 | -$221,227 | $2,120,501 | 39.5% |
| 1987 | $854,288 | $1,004,017 | -$149,730 | $2,345,956 | 40.6% |
| 1988 | $909,238 | $1,064,416 | -$155,178 | $2,601,104 | 41.0% |
| 1989 | $991,105 | $1,143,744 | -$152,639 | $2,867,800 | 40.6% |
| 1990 | $1,031,958 | $1,252,994 | -$221,036 | $3,206,290 | 42.1% |
| 1991 | $1,054,988 | $1,324,226 | -$269,238 | $3,598,178 | 45.3% |
| 1992 | $1,091,208 | $1,381,529 | -$290,321 | $4,001,787 | 48.1% |
| 1993 | $1,154,335 | $1,409,386 | -$255,051 | $4,351,044 | 49.3% |
| 1994 | $1,258,566 | $1,461,753 | -$203,186 | $4,643,307 | 49.2% |
| 1995 | $1,351,790 | $1,515,742 | -$163,952 | $4,920,586 | 49.1% |
| 1996 | $1,453,053 | $1,560,484 | -$107,431 | $5,181,465 | 48.4% |
| 1997 | $1,579,232 | $1,601,116 | -$21,884 | $5,369,206 | 45.9% |
| 1998 | $1,721,728 | $1,652,458 | $69,270 | $5,478,189 | 43.0% |
| 1999 | $1,827,452 | $1,701,842 | $125,610 | $5,605,523 | 39.4% |
| 2000 | $2,025,191 | $1,788,950 | $236,241 | $5,628,700 | 34.7% |
| 2001 | $1,991,082 | $1,862,846 | $128,236 | $5,769,881 | 32.5% |
| 2002 | $1,853,136 | $2,010,894 | -$157,758 | $6,198,401 | 33.6% |
| 2003 | $1,782,314 | $2,159,899 | -$377,585 | $6,760,014 | 35.6% |
| 2004 | $1,880,114 | $2,292,841 | -$412,727 | $7,354,657 | 36.8% |
| 2005 | $2,153,611 | $2,471,957 | -$318,346 | $7,905,300 | 36.9% |
| 2006 | $2,406,869 | $2,655,050 | -$248,181 | $8,451,350 | 36.5% |
| 2007 | $2,567,985 | $2,728,686 | -$160,701 | $8,950,744 | 36.2% |
| 2008 | $2,523,991 | $2,982,544 | -$458,553 | $9,986,082 | 40.3% |
| 2009 | $2,104,989 | $3,517,677 | -$1,412,688 | $11,875,851 | 53.5% |
| 2010 | $2,162,724 | $3,456,213 | -$1,293,489 | $13,528,807 | 62.2% |
| 2011 | $2,173,700 | $3,818,819 | -$1,645,119 | $15,476,243 | 72.0% |
This table does not include yesterday's adjustments to 2011 prediction, so the debt will be very slightly better than shown (maybe only 70%).
Quote: matildaMr Duff: if you listened to anything except Fox, you would be aware of what to others is common knowledge. I am not blaming Bush, I am just stating the well known fact that his administration cooked the books. This has been known for at least 8 years. Where have you been? There was not a full budget appropriation for the Bush wars. The next time you attack me, I suggest you do some homework so you do not appear to be a complete idiot.
I listen to FNC because it is a fair and balanced newscast, unlike say CBS that hides and makes up stories to suit the party it prefers, but that is not the main subject.
Even if the wars were funded by special appropriations, those appropriations go into the final count for the year and affect the final deficit and debt numbers. Total debt cannot be hidden. Monthly Treasury borrowing cannot be hidden.
I do my homework all the time. You should not use terms like "Bush cooked the books for 8 years" as they look like slander and make the user look like a complete idiot.
Quote: thecesspitI'm saying either spend on private contractor OR on government employee. Different types of spending (private/public) to the same net effect. I don't see the logic tat says that the same dollar will be slower if it's spent publically. The dollar still goes into the economy as a whole. It's not in some mystical other place, someone is still working and get a wage.
It's not true to say that different types of spending have the same net effect. In fact, it's the ONLY explanation as to why some spending is stimulative (defense) and some isn't (alphabet soup). If that were so, then government stimulus would be ... well ... stimulating. Whatever theoretical aspects you try to apply simply do not jibe with the reality of the result. We gave up flat-earth thinking for the same reason ... it didn't jibe with reality.
Quote: thecesspitI'd argue that the 1930's alphabet soup had a huge, long lasting impact on the US infrastructure that you still have today and should be glad off.
This is confusing the issue. I think I said that some spending is necessary. While 30s era alphabet soup spending is debatable, what isn't debatable is that things like the interstate highway system and national parks have to have money spent on them. Keeping them up has an effect - a very good effect. But, it is incorrect to call it "stimulative" in the sense of the current political debate.
Think of it this way. You have to spend a certain amount of money on your house/car/whatever to keep it going. With few exceptions, spending this money on maintenance (infrastructure, if you will) does NOT add value to your house/car/whatever. But, if you DON'T spend it, you can face even bigger expenses like more expensive and urgent repairs, or earlier replacement. So, it serves your overall position to spend that money, but it is not "stimulative" in the sense of the term in the contemporary political debate.
All analogies break down, of course, but roughly, there is benefit to spending on infrastructure. I said some spending was necessary. But I also said that what we're doing now is WAY more than mere infrastructure improvements. Lastly, I'm saying it is wrong to assume "benefit" = "stimulative", and history supports that.
Quote: thecesspitI think there are people who want to do more stimulus packages. I also don't think you can keep stimulating all the time, and it's not necessary logic step that doing X all the time will work all the time. Especially not in economics (e.g. one stimulus package may be a good thing, but another one close after has no effect... just like one tax cut could raise net reciepts, but a second one reduces net reciepts).
No doubt, there are people that want to do more, but they're wrong. I would disagree with the statement that "one stimulus package may be a good thing." No stimulus package has ever been stimulative - not in the 30s, not now. If we're going to spend on infrastructure and maintenance, again, it's necessary and it returns benefits. But it's not stimulative.
Quote: AZDuffmanI listen to FNC because it is a fair and balanced newscast
I rest my case.
Quote: matildaI rest my case.
Please back this up with examples from their news casts. You must have many from your watching, or do you simply let other people decide what is fair and balanced for you?
Quote: timberjimPlease back this up with examples from their news casts. You must have many from your watching, or do you simply let other people decide what is fair and balanced for you?
Back what up? Wouldn't it be Duff who'd need to back up his affirmative statement that FNC's coverage is objective and is, infact, fair and balanced?
For my own part, I think FNC is certainly more tolerable than MSNBC. But I think it's slightly more biased than the major networks. And I really like what CNN's done by both bringing in experts from both parties for their opinion programming and making a concerted effort to separate their opinion programming from their news programming. If FNC did a better job in that separation, I'd probably watch much more than I do now.
Quote: matildaHere you go. Have fun. http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/foxvote06-03-30.pdf
Yes it is fun to see a UCBerkeley prof state that FNC is biased! Big surprise.
As I read the conclusions, it was stated that people who watched FNC tended to vote more conservative. What rocket scientist paid for this? - Probably our tax dollars.
You don't realize that you simply backed up my statement that you are letting other people do your thinking for you by citing this report as proof that FNC is biased rather than providing real evidence that we can all look at -- clips of "biased" newscasts from FNC.
Quote: timberjimQuote: matildaHere you go. Have fun. http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/foxvote06-03-30.pdf
Yes it is fun to see a UCBerkeley prof state that FNC is biased! Big surprise.
As I read the conclusions, it was stated that people who watched FNC tended to vote more conservative. What rocket scientist paid for this? - Probably our tax dollars.
You don't realize that you simply backed up my statement that you are letting other people do your thinking for you by citing this report as proof that FNC is biased rather than providing real evidence that we can all look at -- clips of "biased" newscasts from FNC.
I wrote this a couple of weeks back... ta-da!Quote: TheNightflyNot being American I don't really feel qualified to comment on matters of US democracy in action but I get the feeling that even here on this board (the rest of the United States notwithstanding) the primaries and the race to the White House will come down to what it always does - partisan politics and nasty attacks. Democrats think the Republicans stink and Republicans think the Democrats are going to ruin the country. Just reading some of the posts made on this forum it's clear on which side of the fence a number of members sit and like usual, it will be nothing more (or less) than a bunch of bickering, nitpicking and name calling. People get into fights over which news network (CNN vs FOX) is more biased and to which side they lean. Just cast your vote and keep quiet I say.
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/15337115/ron-paul-supporters-protest-outside-fox5-studio
Quote:LAS VEGAS (FOX5) -
Ron Paul supporters are known for being loyal and enthusiastic. Since the Iowa straw poll, Paul supporters are complaining the presidential candidate is being ignored and treated unfairly by the media, especially the Fox News Network.
"We are out here to protest Fox's unfair and unbalanced news coverage of Ron Paul," said David Hart, who organized the protest outside FOX5 Vegas' studio. "It was requested that we get to our Fox news affiliates."
For what's it worth, the local station made a pretty good case for itself - which was basically we're an affiliate, and we're not Newscorp and we set our own story agenda locally.
ITS' ALL OBAMA'S FAULT! IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT! FOX NEWS! MEDIA BIAS!
Did I miss anything? :)
| Year | Receipts | Outlays | Deficit | Debt $ | Debt % GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1940 | $6,548 | $9,468 | -$2,920 | $50,696 | 44.2% |
| 1941 | $8,712 | $13,653 | -$4,941 | $57,531 | 42.3% |
| 1942 | $14,634 | $35,137 | -$20,503 | $79,200 | 47.0% |
| 1943 | $24,001 | $78,555 | -$54,554 | $142,648 | 70.9% |
| 1944 | $43,747 | $91,304 | -$47,557 | $204,079 | 88.3% |
| 1945 | $45,159 | $92,712 | -$47,553 | $260,123 | 106.2% |
| 1946 | $39,296 | $55,232 | -$15,936 | $270,991 | 108.7% |
| 1947 | $38,514 | $34,496 | $4,018 | $257,149 | 96.2% |
| 1948 | $41,560 | $29,764 | $11,796 | $252,031 | 84.3% |
| 1949 | $39,415 | $38,835 | $580 | $252,610 | 79.0% |
| 1950 | $39,443 | $42,562 | -$3,119 | $256,853 | 80.2% |
| 1951 | $51,616 | $45,514 | $6,102 | $255,288 | 66.9% |
| 2007 | $2,567,985 | $2,728,686 | -$160,701 | $8,950,744 | 36.2% |
| 2008 | $2,523,991 | $2,982,544 | -$458,553 | $9,986,082 | 40.3% |
| 2009 | $2,104,989 | $3,517,677 | -$1,412,688 | $11,875,851 | 53.5% |
| 2010 | $2,162,724 | $3,456,213 | -$1,293,489 | $13,528,807 | 62.2% |
| 2011 | $2,173,700 | $3,818,819 | -$1,645,119 | $15,476,243 | 72.0% |
Quote: WizardI which year(s) are we getting hit with the bill for the bank bailouts?
I think some of it was in the 2008 budget when the deficit tripled.
I would like to mix into this argument that the budget president GW Bush signed in February 2008 (i.e. the FY09 budget) seems amazingly optimistic by comparison. It shows the deficit vanishing in only three years. I have come to have more faith in dice setting then I do in government economic projections.
| Feb-2008 | Receipts | Outlays | Surplus or Deficit(−) | Debt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 estimate | $2,521,175 | $2,931,222 | -$410,047 | $9,654,436 |
| 2009 estimate | $2,699,947 | $3,107,355 | -$407,408 | $10,413,414 |
| 2010 estimate | $2,931,348 | $3,091,340 | -$159,992 | $10,954,389 |
| 2011 estimate | $3,076,423 | $3,171,233 | -$94,810 | $11,456,462 |
| 2012 estimate | $3,269,878 | $3,221,828 | $48,050 | $11,868,125 |
Compare with the budget signed only 3 years later on February 2011.
| Feb-2008 | Receipts | Outlays | Deficit | Debt $ | Debt % GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | $2,523,991 | $2,982,544 | -$458,553 | $9,986,082 | 40.3% |
| 2009 | $2,104,989 | $3,517,677 | -$1,412,688 | $11,875,851 | 53.5% |
| 2010 | $2,162,724 | $3,456,213 | -$1,293,489 | $13,528,807 | 62.2% |
| 2011 estimate | $2,173,700 | $3,818,819 | -$1,645,119 | $15,476,243 | 72.0% |
The differences are substantial, both in the overestimated receipts, and the underestimated outlays.
Quote: rxwineThis was on the local 10 o'clock Fox affiliate tonight.
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/15337115/ron-paul-supporters-protest-outside-fox5-studio
For what's it worth, the local station made a pretty good case for itself - which was basically we're an affiliate, and we're not Newscorp and we set our own story agenda locally.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier
Quote: timberjimPlease back this up with examples from their news casts. You must have many from your watching, or do you simply let other people decide what is fair and balanced for you?
Lets see, FNC was the first to break the Bush DUI-from-the-1970s story. FNC was the first to break the ACORN stories. On any "opinion" show on FNC (Hannity, etc) there are usually people from both sides of an issue, certainly more balanced than the network Sunday Shows with one conservative and 3-4 liberals. On FNC for every Hannity there is a Juan Williams.
Somehow we are in a country where a balanced newscast is consideres "slanted" because the network in question actually vets Obama and challenges the nonsense on the left as well as the right.
At this point I say let the lamestream media push their slant more and more. As they do the ratings of FNC go up and other stations look like the shills of the left they are.
Quote: WizardI which year(s) are we getting hit with the bill for the bank bailouts?
I actually think it was 2009. Seems like the collapse really hit in late September 2008 and TARP was passed in October, which would be fiscal 2009.
President Obama's deficit predictions have tended to be too pessimistic and get better the following year. It's fairly small comfort as the numbers are so huge.
All values are in billions of dollars.
| Pres | GWB | GWB | GWB | GWB | GWB | GWB | GWB | GWB | BHO | BHO | BHO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Feb-01 | Feb-02 | Feb-03 | Feb-04 | Feb-05 | Feb-06 | Feb-07 | Feb-08 | Feb-09 | Feb-10 | Feb-11 |
| 2000 | $236 | $236 | $236 | $236 | |||||||
| 2001 | $281 | $127 | $127 | $127 | $128 | ||||||
| 2002 | $231 | $106 | $158 | $158 | $158 | $158 | |||||
| 2003 | $242 | $80 | $304 | $375 | $378 | $378 | $378 | ||||
| 2004 | $262 | $14 | $307 | $521 | $412 | $413 | $413 | $413 | |||
| 2005 | $269 | $61 | $208 | $364 | $427 | $318 | $318 | $318 | $318 | ||
| 2006 | $305 | $86 | $201 | $268 | $390 | $423 | $248 | $248 | $248 | $248 | |
| 2007 | $104 | $178 | $241 | $312 | $354 | $244 | $162 | $161 | $161 | $161 | |
| 2008 | $190 | $239 | $251 | $223 | $239 | $410 | $459 | $459 | $459 | ||
| 2009 | $237 | $233 | $208 | $187 | $407 | $1,841 | $1,413 | $1,413 | |||
| 2010 | $207 | $183 | $94 | $160 | $1,258 | $1,556 | $1,293 | ||||
| 2011 | $205 | $54 | $95 | $929 | $1,267 | $1,645 | |||||
| 2012 | $61 | $48 | $557 | $828 | $1,101 | ||||||
| 2013 | $29 | $512 | $727 | $768 | |||||||
| 2014 | $536 | $706 | $645 | ||||||||
| 2015 | $752 | $607 | |||||||||
| 2016 | $649 |
Quote: AZDuffmanLets see, FNC was the first to break the Bush DUI-from-the-1970s story. FNC was the first to break the ACORN stories. On any "opinion" show on FNC (Hannity, etc) there are usually people from both sides of an issue, certainly more balanced than the network Sunday Shows with one conservative and 3-4 liberals. On FNC for every Hannity there is a Juan Williams.
Somehow we are in a country where a balanced newscast is consideres "slanted" because the network in question actually vets Obama and challenges the nonsense on the left as well as the right.
At this point I say let the lamestream media push their slant more and more. As they do the ratings of FNC go up and other stations look like the shills of the left they are.
FNC doesn't have anything to apologize for. However people from varying political perspectives interpret what FNC broadcasts, what can't be denied are two things. First, they offer something different than the other broadcasts; that's apparent to any viewer within a few hours. Second, whatever it is that they're offering differently is working, as they are absolutely blowing the f*ck away their competition.
IMHO, the "different" thing that FNC offers is that they don't ridicule the conservative viewpoint. But even further, they present the conservative viewpoint as a sane and law-abiding political philosophy that it is not extreme to hold. Yes, they have conservative opinion shows, but that is only a manifestation of what I just said.
The belief that FNC squashes liberal perspectives is proven false by the testimony of the liberal people that work there - Colmes, Williams, etc. Both of those guys have said, on the air, that their freedom to express opinion has NEVER been squashed. I assume it's the same way for the other liberal pundits who appear on FNC - Wrangel, Beckel, Liasson, etc., etc., etc. You might recall that Williams got fired from NPR for expressing his political opinion.
It always made me wonder why a news network wouldn't present the conservative opinions in a similar way FNC does. They have conservative pundits, but it's not similar to FNC. Obviously, it's the path to success and better ratings, but they won't take it. So, it must be that something is more important to them than success and better ratings. IMHO, it's maintaining the liberal religion/orthodoxy that's more important to them. While that's a perfectly legitimate pursuit, it could not be more opposite of the stated purpose of journalism. Hiding it behind "journalism" is sinister.
To someone who holds a liberal viewpoint, it shouldn't really be a concern that there's a network that doesn't ridicule your political opponents. That's merely the marketplace of ideas in action. But liberals DEFINITELY react to FNC. The current White House damn near kicked them out of the press corps. That makes me think that there's something in the liberal religion/orthodox that cannot tolerate diversity of opinion.
If you don't like FNC, fine. I don't like MSNBC, but you don't see me saying, "It should be kicked off the air!" or even trying to convince people to not watch it. I just leave it alone. If it fails, it fails ... if not, it doesn't. Marketplace in action. But if it got closed by the government, THAT would be scary. I would rather have it there than not, as having a variety of news sources is, IMHO, absolutely CRITICAL to maintaining accountability.
Liberals, though, general have no problem with the possibility of government shutting down FNC, Limbaugh, etc. (Fairness Doctrine, etc. - while it was just now officially shit-canned, liberals were talking about bringing it back in the last couple of years). Anyone who supports the government stifling of political opinion and debate = totalitarian and anti-American. Period.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerFNC doesn't have anything to apologize for. However people from varying political perspectives interpret what FNC broadcasts, what can't be denied are two things. First, they offer something different than the other broadcasts; that's apparent to any viewer within a few hours. Second, whatever it is that they're offering differently is working, as they are absolutely blowing the f*ck away their competition.
IMHO, the "different" thing that FNC offers is that they don't ridicule the conservative viewpoint. But even further, they present the conservative viewpoint as a sane and law-abiding political philosophy that it is not extreme to hold. Yes, they have conservative opinion shows, but that is only a manifestation of what I just said.
FNC has definately hit the right mix and format, and it seems to be confusing the heck out of the competition. The 2010 election-night coverage proved it. I was flipping between FNC and MSNBC. FNC had Chris Wallace and other "news-end" people doing the coverage with a break to Bill O, Hannity, and other "opinion/commentary-end" people for 10 or so minutes per hour. MSNBC had Maddow and other opinion-end people the whole evening, asking purely slanted questions to the many GOP winners.
It is as if MSNBC looked and decided, "opinion sells, lets just do opinion but we will do it even bigger!" They missed that FNC uses balance and lets viewers decide. This is a disease all over entertainment. Same thing happened in entertainment TV when "The Simpsons" came on and the other networks rushed out to put *anything* animated on the air because "people must like cartoons now." They missed that "The Simpsons" had good charachters and writing.
Meanwhile the liberals use their rule of freedom speech, "if you don't like what someone has to say, don't let them say it!"
Quote: thecesspitPeople who want to remove freedom of expression are not liberal. I find it amusing that the word Liberal in American politics seems to be used to describe a group of people who seem not to be liberal by the way I use the word...
It is a little Orwellian. Lower case L "liberal" is as you say.
But Upper case L "Liberal" as in "the modern American political movement that's called Liberal in the vernacular" does exactly that - tries to remove freedom of expression using all sorts of vehicles - the guise of journalism, laws like the now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, the attempt to remove FNC, the largest and most successful national news network, from the White House, the name-calling and efforts to shame that are manifold on this and other internet forums. That is simply undeniable to the point of denying it indicates a form of delusion.
Quote: AZDuffmanFNC has definately hit the right mix and format, and it seems to be confusing the heck out of the competition. The 2010 election-night coverage proved it. I was flipping between FNC and MSNBC. FNC had Chris Wallace and other "news-end" people doing the coverage with a break to Bill O, Hannity, and other "opinion/commentary-end" people for 10 or so minutes per hour. MSNBC had Maddow and other opinion-end people the whole evening, asking purely slanted questions to the many GOP winners.
It is as if MSNBC looked and decided, "opinion sells, lets just do opinion but we will do it even bigger!" They missed that FNC uses balance and lets viewers decide. This is a disease all over entertainment. Same thing happened in entertainment TV when "The Simpsons" came on and the other networks rushed out to put *anything* animated on the air because "people must like cartoons now." They missed that "The Simpsons" had good charachters and writing.
Meanwhile the liberals use their rule of freedom speech, "if you don't like what someone has to say, don't let them say it!"
I don't think it confuses their competition. I think their competition knows exactly what and how they're doing it, and what and how they can do the same thing. I think they just can't bring themselves to place journalism above their religion/orthodoxy.
That's a common human fault, and that's okay. But they should acknowledge and deal with it.
(1) Debt was larger than GDP in WWII.
(2) While the nation did nothing to dramatically reduce the dollar value of the debt, over a three decade period it was reduced.
(3) It fell under Clinton
(4) Since Clinton it is rising to levels unseen since WWII.
What will it take to reduce debt? History tells us it will take decades, if it can be done at all.
Can we maintain the discipline for decades?
| Year | Debt $ | Publicly Held Debt % GDP | Total Debt % GDP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1946 | $270,991 | 108.7% | 121.7% |
| 1974 | $483,893 | 23.9% | 33.6% |
| 1981 | $994,828 | 25.8% | 32.5% |
| 1993 | $4,351,044 | 49.3% | 66.1% |
| 2001 | $5,769,881 | 32.5% | 56.4% |
| 2011 | $15,476,243 | 72.0% | 102.6% |
Plz consider posting arguments about news network on different thread. It is confusing.
I apoligize for being part of the news bias posting on this thread. A few too many beers got me going on it.
Quote: pacomartinChoosing only the turning points of Debt as a percentage of GDP we have 5 in the last seven decades.
(1) Debt was larger than GDP in WWII.
(2) While the nation did nothing to dramatically reduce the dollar value of the debt, over a three decade period it was reduced to less than 24% of GDP.
(3) It fell under Clinton to leas than a third of GDP
(4) Since Clinton it is rising to levels unseen since WWII.
What will it take to reduce debt? History tells us it will take decades, if it can be done at all.
Can we maintain the discipline for decades?
The important difference after #2 is "baseline budgeting." In the early 1970s Congress changed from making an appropriation every year to not doing that job and just having a built-in increase every year. And this is where the hidden danger under Obama has been. The "stimulus" raised many baselines and now the say 3% a year increase is more and more.
Can we maintain the discipline for decades? Heck no. The nation keeps getting more and more divided between people who want to be or at least do not care that they are wards of the government and people who believe in doing for themselves. My personal prediction is that it will take several undersubscribed Treasury Auctions and thus really not having the money before it happens. Just like child stars like Danny Bonnaduche had happen to their trust funds. Ask the trustee for more and more money but promise to behave next time. Eventuallly the trustee tells you the account is empty.
Quote: timberjimPaco - do you know what kind of GDP growth predictions are being used to come up with with future deficit predictions and are they reasonable when compared to past growth trends?
I apoligize for being part of the news bias posting on this thread. A few too many beers got me going on it.
Everyone hijacks a thread sooner or later, it just gets confusing to read.
Here are the GDP growth percentages, both past and predicted. These percentages are not adjusted for inflation. Part of the optimisim is that we will return to the growth rates of several years ago.
| Year | Change GDP |
|---|---|
| 2001 | 4.14% |
| 2002 | 3.04% |
| 2003 | 4.10% |
| 2004 | 6.55% |
| 2005 | 6.47% |
| 2006 | 6.24% |
| 2007 | 5.09% |
| 2008 | 3.53% |
| 2009 | -1.98% |
| 2010 | 2.92% |
| 2011 estimate | 3.91% |
| 2012 estimate | 4.85% |
| 2013 estimate | 5.88% |
| 2014 estimate | 6.19% |
| 2015 estimate | 5.71% |
| 2016 estimate | 5.31% |
What will it take to reduce debt? History tells us it will take decades, if it can be done at all.
TURNING POINTS FOR DEBT
| Year | Debt $ | Publicly Held Debt % GDP | Total Debt % GDP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1946 | $270,991 | 108.7% | 121.7% |
| 1974 | $483,893 | 23.9% | 33.6% |
| 1981 | $994,828 | 25.8% | 32.5% |
| 1993 | $4,351,044 | 49.3% | 66.1% |
| 2001 | $5,769,881 | 32.5% | 56.4% |
| 2011 | $15,476,243 | 72.0% | 102.6% |
TOTAL DEBT
2012 estimate 105.3%
2013 estimate 106.0%
2014 estimate 105.5%
2015 estimate 105.2%
2016 estimate 105.2%
| Year | Defense | Interest |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 | $694 billion | $196 billion |
| 2011 | $768 | $207 |
| 2012 | $738 | $242 |
| 2013 | $676 | $321 |
| 2014 | $665 | $418 |
| 2015 | $672 | $494 |
| 2016 | $680 | $562 |
Quote: pacomartinInterest payments should pass Defense budget by the end of the decade.
Year Defense Interest 2010 $694 billion $196 billion 2011 $768 $207 2012 $738 $242 2013 $676 $321 2014 $665 $418 2015 $672 $494 2016 $680 $562
What has changed in the last six months since I made this post. Keep in mind that the previous post was made 27 August 2011, when there was only 34 days left in the fiscal year 2011. To give them a week to prepare the budget, I'll assume that there was 6 weeks left in the fiscal year.
As usual in the short term things are worse than predicted last August. Defense spending is going to be lower than predicted and interest payments are higher than predicted.
The reason I am so cynical about budgets is that after they get through telling you that reality for the year 2011 are 'way off' from the estimates made only last August (only a few weeks from the end of the fiscal year), then they ask you to believe that things are going to get much better than predicted in the next five years.
| Year | Defense | Interest |
|---|---|---|
| 2011 | -8% | 11% |
| 2012 | -3% | -7% |
| 2013 | 4% | -23% |
| 2014 | -10% | -26% |
| 2015 | -15% | -21% |
| 2016 | -15% | -14% |
My complaint is really independent of the administration (Republican or Democrat). They always make changes in the far future which supposedly make the current situation more palatable. But the predictions for the far future are never even close to being correct.
Since there is so much error in a budget released only 6 weeks before the end of the fiscal year, why should I believe in the 6 year prediction.
| Year | Defense | Interest |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 | $694 billion | $196 billion |
| 2011 | $706 | $230 |
| 2012 | $716 | $225 |
| 2013 | $702 | $248 |
| 2014 | $599 | $309 |
| 2015 | $572 | $390 |
| 2016 | $578 | $483 |
| 2017 | $589 | $565 |
In any case, using the prediction by the year 2017 Interest payments will be only 4% lower than defense expenditures.
