CBO: Under Obama's Budget Debt Level Will Rise to 90% of GDP in Nine Years

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

No matter how one looks at it, none of this would be as bad if good ol' George W hadn't run up the deficit as high as he did in his 8 years in office with his tax cuts and immoral war in Iraq (after coming into office with a budget surplus, that is). Obama is trying to move the country forward, but is terribly hampered by the legacy of George W. Bush.

Georges spending is going be pennies compared to Obama. Bush was good for about 6+ billion. Obama is on pace to put up 30+ billion in half the time.

 

[Trinity]

United States public debt

several links to CBO and various other reports out there. Now grow up and find something better to do than turn a simple politics subsection of a sex-based forum into a provocative, distorted, one-man freakshow please.

Your own link says:

During March 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that gross debt will rise from 70.2% of GDP in 2008 to 100.6% in 2012.

at the end of Bush's term debt was 78% of GDP not 80% - you must use the same advisors and accountants as Obama.

Who is surprised that the debt is going to be a huge portion of GDP for awhile? Only idiots.

Clinton inherited debt at 68% of GDP and decreased it to 58% in 8 years.

Obama can't get his projections right in his budgets, is off by 1.2 Trillion dollars and increases the debt ratio to GDP to 90% of GDP -if we are lucky.

Obama is going in the wrong direction. His budgets tell the story.

Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half by 2013 but his deficits keep exploding:

The budget deficit surged to $1.4 trillion in 2009, the largest shortfall on record in dollar terms and nearly $1 trillion greater than the deficit recorded the previous year. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit more than tripled in 2009 to 9.9 percent, its highest level since the end of World War II. Revenues fell to their lowest level as a percentage of GDP since 1950 (14.8 percent), and outlays climbed to their highest share of GDP since 1946 (24.7 percent).

CBO

Obama can't even get in the right direction as President Clinton in ten years as opposed to Clinton's eight.

 

[midlifebear]

Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half by 2013 but his deficits keep exploding:

CBO

Obama can't even get in the right direction as President Clinton in ten years as opposed to Clinton's eight.

Well, I think we should check in on this in 2013 and see how things are doing. :moon:

 

[TomCat84]

The graph wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to. I was referring to the graph further down. And the only "infrastructure" WWII created was the military-industrial complex that still exists today; it didn't create all the roads, the schools, social security, and everything else responsible for putting us at the head of the world afterwards. The war is definitely what ended the depression, but it's not what made the US a world power.

oh, and know what a war is, in terms of economics? A spending spree.

I'm going to disagree with you here, at least with the part at the very end. One could argue that the war did indeed vault the US into super power status. The rest of the world was in shambles, while the US was relatively unscathed, both in terms on infrastructure and deaths (yes there were a lot, but nowhere near those suffered by the Soviets, France, and Britain.) That, coupled with the huge military the US had built up (including atomic weapons), instantly made us the only super power. We had arguably been a world power since the end of the Spanish American War, and the most powerful country in the world following WWI, but the US public and politicans never showed much of an appetite to act the part.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

In fact most historians feel that without World War II, the great depression would have continued in spite of the New Deal.

Please define "most" in this context, because something tells me you're being liberal with your definition of the word, if not flat out incorrect.


I randomly clicked on Google's search results for (did WWII end the great depression) and got this...

Did World War II really end the Great Depression, though? It's useful to note that the economy had been in expansion since June of 1938, two and a half years before U.S. entry into the second World War and that the economy stopped expanding in February 1945, prior to the end of the war. In "Wartime Prosperity? A Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940s", Robert Higgs argues:

Relying on standard measures of macroeconomic performance, historians and economists believe that “war prosperity” prevailed in the United States during World War II. This belief is ill-founded, because it does not recognize that the United States had a command economy during the war. From 1942 to 1946 some macroeconomic performance measures are statistically inaccurate; others are conceptually inappropriate. A better grounded interpretation is that during the war the economy was a huge arsenal in which the well-being of consumers deteriorated. After the war genuine prosperity returned for the first time since 1929.

It's easy to see that a war is simply a special case of deficit spending. Whatever the case is for deficit spending as a cure, war spending is clearly much weaker because the spending is not for productive purposes, but for destructive ones, no matter how justified the war might be.

http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdcandc.html

 

[Pitbull]

Indeed, so what did the country do to pay off the war debt? Taxes were raised. Do you see that now? No.

They were able to stop spending on the war.
That is like having more money when the kids graduate college and move out

This really shows your youth and inexperience in understanding Government spending.

Nice try.
But you are on the wrong side of this one.
The government spending in the past year and a half does not even rise to the level of poorly thought out. Nobody thought and hardly anyone even read the legislation.
Many economists are saying the trillion dollar stimulus actually has slowed the economy.
And if you care to - look it up yourself and educate yourself.
And while you are at it - take your own advice and sit down and shut up.

The graph wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to. I was referring to the graph further down. And the only "infrastructure" WWII created was the military-industrial complex that still exists today; it didn't create all the roads, the schools, social security, and everything else responsible for putting us at the head of the world afterwards. The war is definitely what ended the depression, but it's not what made the US a world power.

oh, and know what a war is, in terms of economics? A spending spree.

Thanks for agreeing that WWII ended the depression. (Mikeyh9in and TallPaGuy disagree with both of us on that)
(And note to TallPaGuy - one citation from Google does not prove anything. But if you continued on the list of hits you can find someone who disagrees with you and the link you provided)

World power, superpower - we could argue all day about that.
I would contend that it was actually the Civil War that made the US a world power - though it wasn't until WWI that the European powers had real proof. And the Atomic Bomb put the US in a class by itself until others caught up.

And a war is a spending spree.
Sometimes necessary if your survival is at stake.
Like buying a high priced parachute when the plane is nose diving.

But entering a war you do not have to - Iraq is a good example - can wreck havoc on the economy.
Endless warfare have brought down many kingdoms.
Read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. He warned us.

And many of those roads. Not a New Deal project.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/homepage.cfm

something tells me you're being liberal

Me Liberal. Only with seasoning on my food.

 

[Pitbull]

Obama is trying to move the country forward, but is terribly hampered by the legacy of George W. Bush.

Real leaders do not make excuses for their failures.

 

[mikeyh9in]

They were able to stop spending on the war.
That is like having more money when the kids graduate college and move out



Nice try.
But you are on the wrong side of this one.
The government spending in the past year and a half does not even rise to the level of poorly thought out. Nobody thought and hardly anyone even read the legislation.
Many economists are saying the trillion dollar stimulus actually has slowed the economy.
And if you care to - look it up yourself and educate yourself.
And while you are at it - take your own advice and sit down and shut up.



Thanks for agreeing that WWII ended the depression. (Mikeyh9in and TallPaGuy disagree with both of us on that)

You *are* so close to connecting the dots it's amazing. You need to understand that Government budgeting and spending is vastly different than your home budget and spending -- trying to equate the two is nonsense. During a recession (or depression), Governments take in greatly reduced tax income, while needing to expend more for services. If they contracted spending during these times, the economy would worsen.

So, just as you pointed out, the known (and proven) way of of dealing with recessions, is through deficit financing. World War II was a very large Government *spending* program.

You can argue that it is too much, but that is where I pointed to you to review the way Japan dealt with their severe recession in the 90's -- they did do deficit financing with large government spending... the problem was they did not do enough at key points and ended up making their recession last a very long time.

-mike

 

[43698]

I think they both suck W and O that is. I am not partisan to either party they are both the same devil.

 

[Pitbull]

You *are* so close to connecting the dots it's amazing. You need to understand that Government budgeting and spending is vastly different than your home budget and spending -- trying to equate the two is nonsense. During a recession (or depression), Governments take in greatly reduced tax income, while needing to expend more for services. If they contracted spending during these times, the economy would worsen.

So, just as you pointed out, the known (and proven) way of of dealing with recessions, is through deficit financing. World War II was a very large Government *spending* program.

You can argue that it is too much, but that is where I pointed to you to review the way Japan dealt with their severe recession in the 90's -- they did do deficit financing with large government spending... the problem was they did not do enough at key points and ended up making their recession last a very long time.

-mike

And you are coming close to connecting the dots too.

There are more ways of dealing with a recession than deficit financing.
There are other ways of stimulating the economy than spending money.
And what they are spending on.
How they are spending it.
And the planning that goes into it.
I probably spent more time before I purchased my last laptop researching and shopping around than most senators and congressional representatives spent before voting on the trillion dollar programs that are coming before them with frightening regularity.
They do have options.
But Republican or Democrat the end result seems to be benefit for special interests.

The regulations and taxes have a lot to do with the economy and too much regulation and taxes is an obstruction to economic growth.

One of the big problems is not spending during the recession but lack of saving by the government during economic good times.
They almost always are running big deficits (and yes I am aware of the few years of surplus during the 90's).
And when spending is not a one time expenditure, like the interstate highway system during the 50's, but an ever growing entitlement like social security, medicare or prescription drug benefit it causes problems when the bills start to come due and the money was spent long ago.

Government spending is different than home finance which is different than business finance. But we would be much better off if government were more like home finance or business finance.
Our elected leaders are ignorant in a lot of things and they have proved that economics is one of those things.

 

[mikeyh9in]

Pitbull,

Yes, it would be great if, instead of giving a trillion dollar tax break to the rich, we should have saved that money -- the only thing the tax break accomplished was to make the rich, richer.

But we can't erase Bush's mistakes and must deal with them as best we can.

You are showing your ignorance when you say Government finance should be more like home and business finances. Any basic economic class (not sure high school, but definitely undergrad in college) will explain why.

I still point to the very real case example we have in very recent history -- from a country with the second highest GDP in the world -- Japan. They have gone through (and some argue still dealing with) their own very deep recession. They also made (and they are the first to admit it) some very big mistakes one how they handled it.

I know Republicans do not like anything intellectual (I also know you are not a Republican), but don't you think we should take the lessons that Japan has learned and use that knowledge to help our economy?

I know for some it is hard to admit, but America may actually learn something from another nation. It's arrogant to think that we can't.

And you are coming close to connecting the dots too.

There are more ways of dealing with a recession than deficit financing.
There are other ways of stimulating the economy than spending money.
And what they are spending on.
How they are spending it.
And the planning that goes into it.
I probably spent more time before I purchased my last laptop researching and shopping around than most senators and congressional representatives spent before voting on the trillion dollar programs that are coming before them with frightening regularity.
They do have options.
But Republican or Democrat the end result seems to be benefit for special interests.

The regulations and taxes have a lot to do with the economy and too much regulation and taxes is an obstruction to economic growth.

One of the big problems is not spending during the recession but lack of saving by the government during economic good times.
They almost always are running big deficits (and yes I am aware of the few years of surplus during the 90's).
And when spending is not a one time expenditure, like the interstate highway system during the 50's, but an ever growing entitlement like social security, medicare or prescription drug benefit it causes problems when the bills start to come due and the money was spent long ago.

Government spending is different than home finance which is different than business finance. But we would be much better off if government were more like home finance or business finance.
Our elected leaders are ignorant in a lot of things and they have proved that economics is one of those things.

 

[B_RedDude]

It's not an "excuse", it's the truth.

George W. Bush's presidency was a disaster and his successor is having to deal with its effects.

Please spare us the contextually empty and inaccurately applied statements about leadership.

Real leaders do not make excuses for their failures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDude [URL]http://www.lpsg.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
Obama is trying to move the country forward, but is terribly hampered by the legacy of George W. Bush.

 

[Trinity]

It's not an "excuse", it's the truth.

George W. Bush's presidency was a disaster and his successor is having to deal with its effects.

Please spare us the contextually empty and inaccurately applied statements about leadership.

Originally Posted by RedDude
Obama is trying to move the country forward, but is terribly hampered by the legacy of George W. Bush

Obama was elected to address the massive problems this country faced. It is an excuse. Obama knew what the situation was when he was elected...he ran on it.

Obama's budgets are leading our economy into unsustainability rather than improving the situation as Pres. Clinto was able to do. Obama's healthcare bill is an accounting fallacy and will add to the deficit, and adversely affect healthcare and access. Obama's bad policies are Obama's failures...and a failure of what he was elected to do. It stopped being about Bush when Obama took office.

 

[B_RedDude]

Nope! Sorry

I'm not trying to say at all that the President is above criticism. I think the healthcare bill is shit. The point I am trying to make is that Republican solutions are not the answer. They may appear to be an answer because of our accumulated deficit, but exclusive of that, they're not really what the country needs.

I'm not blind to the problems of the deficit at all. That's what so frustrating.

It stopped being about Bush when Obama took office.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

It's only an excuse to impatient trolls who just want to find a reason to bitch.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^Anything to take the focus away from her serial incompetence.

It stopped being about Bush when Obama took office.

So, the moment Obama took office, we're not allowed to blame anything on Bush anymore, huh?

lol... Ok, cool.. Remember to apply that logic when Obama leaves office in 2017. No matter how much you hate things he did, no matter how far reaching the changes, and how long their effects last, you can never blame anything on Obama after he leaves office.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

lol... Ok, cool.. Remember to apply that logic when Obama leaves office in 2017. No matter how much you hate things he did, no matter how far reaching the changes, and how long their effects last, you can never blame anything on Obama after he leaves office.

And we all know that ain't gonna happen.
Some of these fools still blame Clinton and Carter for shit that's going on now.

 

[JacobFox]

^Anything to take the focus away from her serial incompetence.



So, the moment Obama took office, we're not allowed to blame anything on Bush anymore, huh?

lol... Ok, cool.. Remember to apply that logic when Obama leaves office in 2017. No matter how much you hate things he did, no matter how far reaching the changes, and how long their effects last, you can never blame anything on Obama after he leaves office.

Good point, but too bad it never works. Kind of like some people I talk to who say the economic boom and budget surpluses during Clinton's administration can be attributed to Bush Sr and everything bad that happened during Bush Jr's administration was Clinton's fault. It's always so bizarre but people like that always blame everything bad on the people they don't like and praise those they like for all the good things, regardless of who is responsible.

Very sad.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Actually, I think it's encouraging... When the wingnuts spew idiocy on this level, they turn off other voters so hard, that they essentially wind up disenfranchising themselves, because there is NO HOPE for a lasting political victory of any kind when everything one stands for is based on lies and paranoid delusions. The only people who will buy in are other bigoted and ethically bankrupt lemmings.

The longer these wingnuts and teabaggers run the Republican Party, the longer that the Republican Party will have no hope of winning of anything but the brunt of our comedians' punchlines.

 

[Trinity]

So, the moment Obama took office, we're not allowed to blame anything on Bush anymore, huh?

No. Obama can't deficit spend increasing the debt and deficit to record amounts above what Bush did and keep blaiming it all on Bush. Obama campaigned on Paygo. Obama campaigned on fiscal responsibility. Obama campaigned on balancing the budget. Obama campaigned on not leaving future generations burdened with debt. Obama is NOT doing any of that. Obama's Stimulus didn't stimulate jobs so he had to pass numerous jobs bills which is just BILLIONS MORE IN STIMULUS that is adding to the deficit. That's on Obama. That was Obama's error in Presidential judgement. Obama forced an unpaid for entitlement that will cost Trillions. Obama is mishandling TARP. Obama's Mortgage Program is a failure. Under Obama Wall Street is still doing the same things that got us in this mess. Obama, Obama Obama. Sorry but he can't blame Bush for his own mistakes, his failure to lead or his administration's inability to do what he claimed he could do in the campaign.

lol... Ok, cool.. Remember to apply that logic when Obama leaves office in 2017. No matter how much you hate things he did, no matter how far reaching the changes, and how long their effects last, you can never blame anything on Obama after he leaves office.

Obama's legacy will be HIS legacy. If what he does during his administration fails...it will be a failed Presidency for...Obama.