The Era of Massive Deficits Is Just Beginning
The Era of Massive Deficits Is Just Beginning
Today, the Congressional Budget Office issued its ten-year budget outlook. According to their report, the 2006 federal budget deficit will be at least $337 billion, and deficits from 2006-15 will total $1.2 trillion. If we continue with President Bush’s economic policies the actual deficits will be much, much higher.
First, the CBO numbers exclude tens of billions of dollars in expected spending for Iraq and Katrina. Second, the long-term figures assume President Bush’s tax cuts, which overwhelming benefited the wealthy, will expire at the end of the decade.
To understand how tax cut extensions would ruin our long-term budget picture, look no further than the CBO report. Below are three important points from the report:
1) CBO assumes Bush tax cuts will expire after 2010:“By statute, CBO’s baseline must project the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current laws and policies.”
2) Little chance of tax cuts expiring:“The assumption that tax provisions will expire as scheduled has a significant impact on CBO’s projections. Many of the expiring provisions were enacted many years ago but are routinely extended, and most reduce [tax] receipts.”
3) Effects on the budget would be severe:“[I]f all of the tax provisions that are set to expire over the next 10 years were extended, the budget outlook for 2016 would change from a surplus of $67 billion to a deficit of $584 billion“.
To learn more about budget issues check out the new Center for American Progress budget blog.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
1.) That’s only three things, not four.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:26 pm2.) The provided link is broken.
Republicans should have to pay a “war” tax. They are bankrupting us. So much for fiscal responsibility. What a laugh.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:28 pmOff topic, again:
Kerry has called for a filibuster of Alito nomination.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:29 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/alito/index.html
#1 – The typo is fixed. The link should work, but it takes a little while to come up.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pm“Smaller government”, my @ss.
Let’s make the Bush supporters’ kids pay for this.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:39 pm#2 – I guess Republican “fiscal responsibility” went out the door with “personal responsibility”.
In fact, the only “responsibility” they have left is the “responsibility” of destroying the American foundation: the Constitution.
It’s really scary to think that Pres. Bush and the Republicans were able to turn the largest projected surplus into the largest projected deficit in the history of America!
January 26th, 2006 at 4:41 pmThis is what the neo-cons want. The choice they are forcing on Americans is fund the military (while yelling terrorists, terrorists) or fund welfare (social programs including health care, family support, college loans, etc.) . . .which do you want? If they get their way, social programs will be eliminated entirely. Just look at how they “reduced spending” in the last budget. This is the blueprint and the cutting has already begun.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:48 pmThat’s Grover Norquist’s plan. Determined to drown the baby in the bathtub.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:48 pmJust like they did to the ninth ward in NOLA’
Norquist. The enemy.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pmMeet the new boss
Same as the old boss
7- The graft is much easier if you overfund the Pentagon.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pmI often wonder how long it will be before ordinary Americans start strapping home-made explosive belts to themselves and becoming suicide bombers? It’s already happened, hasn’t it? That student in Oklahoma they all thought was a jihadi. He wasn’t.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pmNobody can predict the future. Nobody.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:29 pm#11 – Can you say “Timmy McVeigh”???
Sometimes the terrorists are Christian, and have the same lack of concern for innocent children in their acts of terrorism.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:30 pmThe choice they are forcing on Americans is fund the military (while yelling terrorists, terrorists) or fund welfare (social programs including health care, family support, college loans, etc.) . . .which do you want?
In point of fact, Bush has increased social spending AND military spending … which is the problem. This doesn’t have to be an either/or argument … it can be a both/and.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:31 pmIn point of fact, Bush has increased social spending AND military spending … which is the problem. This doesn’t have to be an either/or argument … it can be a both/and.
Comment by Giacomo
And increased the size and intrusiveness of the gubmint and lowered taxes on the filthy rich, a rarefied group you do not even belong to. Insane.
Nobody can predict the future. Nobody.
Comment by Don
Oh yeah, Don?
I predict you would vote for a third term for Bush and you will vote for whoever the GOOPER nominees are.
And I did that without my crystal ballz.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:38 pmI also predict you are a gooper troll and will lie about anything.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:40 pmSo, I guess we’ll be learning Chinese.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#16 – er I think Giaco is correct 3Gs, although the spending increases are dwarfed by the tax cut giveaways.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:45 pmAnd now for a little perspective:
Economists say the more significant measure is against the size of the economy. In those terms, CBO’s 2006 deficit prediction would equal 2.6 percent of gross domestic product and would be significantly better than deficits witnessed in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Then, deficits of 4 percent to 6 percent of GDP were common.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:47 pmWhen will the sane people be in charge again? Perhaps all Americans can simply budget the way the Republicans do. You know, don’t count automobile operating expenses, don’t count groceries etc.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:47 pmNot counting Iraq and Katrina and whatever other creative accounting that is going on is just insane, not credible and so third world.
He hasn’t increased spending. Spending has barely kept up with growth and inflation, but I grant you that you are correct, 3T, and Giacomo is smart enough to know the difference. The waste of this administration alone dwarfs either.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:48 pmAnd increased the size and intrusiveness of the gubmint and lowered taxes on the filthy rich, a rarefied group you do not even belong to. Insane.
I’d agree with your size and intrusiveness comments … but to a point. It would take far too long to hash out the tax cuts for the rich issue, but you’ve been misled on that issue. In short, those that shoulder the most burden benefit the most from a reduction … this ins’t hard, but is an all to convenient bashing point for many on the left. Anyone who could honestly and fairly (and openly) look at the scenario would realize this.
Before you say it (just in case), I wouldn’t support a 3rd term for Bush … besides Rice, McCain or Guiliani would be better candidates.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:50 pmSwamp Rabbit,
No offense, but economists say whatever they are paid to say. It’s meaningless drivel.
Fact:
“Economics is the only field in which two people can get a Nobel Prize for saying the opposite thing” is true, but is not strong enough. Better:
“Economics is the only field in which two people can share a Nobel Prize for saying opposing things.” Specifically, Myrdal and Hayek shared one.
Roberto Alazar
(A rumor has it that there was a similar case in neuroscience, Golgi and Cajal, maybe economists are not so different!)
January 26th, 2006 at 5:51 pmI’d agree with your size and intrusiveness comments … but to a point. It would take far too long to hash out the tax cuts for the rich issue, but you’ve been misled on that issue. In short, those that shoulder the most burden benefit the most from a reduction … this ins’t hard, but is an all to convenient bashing point for many on the left. Anyone who could honestly and fairly (and openly) look at the scenario would realize this.
Really?
WFBuckley, Jr. disagrees with you.
Tax wealth, not income.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:53 pmPersonally, I think Buckley is an effete snob, but he’s a hell of a lot smarter than you or anyone in this administration.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:55 pmGiacomo,
I’m curious where you get your information on the effects of taxation. I’ve read lots of things from the right and the left, and I can’t see how you could honestly come to this conclusion. I’d be curious as to know what sources you ‘trust’ as your authority on this, or whether you just have a person gut intuition? My experience of republicans in general is that taxes is one of the areas you guys can’t have a logical or rational discussion about – please prove me wrong :)
As for McCain, having one of the corrupt Keating 5 scandal boys as president is hardly a move forward for the culture of corruption that dominates republican values currently.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:55 pm“Economists say the more significant measure is against the size of the economy. Swamp Rabbit”
Isn’t what you say only true if there isn’t already significant debt held by the country? It’s like arguing that you can rack up so much credit card debt per year based on your salary, without considering how much debt is already held isn’t it?
I know I’m asking you to respond with your ‘reasoning’ brain, and not your emotional and partisan response center – but I’m curious if this makes any sense to you at all. Are you too shut down to think for yourself, or can you show me that an original thought lingers inside ready to get out? :)
January 26th, 2006 at 5:58 pmThe Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects
January 26th, 2006 at 5:59 pmthat if current laws and policies remained the same, the
federal government would run a deficit of $337 billion in
2006. The baseline deficit for this year
would be somewhat larger than the deficit of $318 billion
in 2005, but it would be roughly the same relative to the
size of the nation’s economy. At 2.6 percent of the gross
domestic product (GDP), this year’s baseline deficit
would be slightly above the average deficit of 2.3 percent
of GDP recorded since 1965.
“In short, those that shoulder the most burden benefit the most from a reduction … this ins’t hard, but is an all to convenient bashing point for many on the left. Giacomo”
If this is true, then shouldn’t the poor and the middle class be granted a reduction? After all, they shoulder a much larger burden relative to their ability to pay than the wealthy do? If a poor person is paying taxes, but can’t afford to pay for anything but substandard housing – wouldn’t taxes for them represent the most burden? Or was that too ‘reasoned’ to break through the partisan emotion barrier that partisans put up to not have to think about an issue?
Hey I don’t really care who’s taxed as long as it makes a civil society, but from what I’ve seen if there are taxes on the poor when the wealthy have much more than they need doesn’t seem very civilized. Isn’t there one of those Christian fairy tale stories where they tell you that much is expected from those who are given much? I think most of that religious stuff is just excuses to blame others for your failure, but hey, that point sounds right to me.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:03 pmYou are just wrong, Giacomo, and only a slave to your own ideology. If socialism is slavery and socialism is an ideology, than your ideological adherence to capitalism is a form of slavery, too. How do you like your chains?
January 26th, 2006 at 6:04 pmSwamp Rabbit,
You didn’t answer my question about the credit card debt? Is having an original thought something you’re not up for today? You can rant on with partisan arguments all day, but last time I checked we have a larger debt load per GDP than many countries have had before their currency collapsed. I’m not saying that will happen to us, but it should be a warning flag to anyone that isn’t just a partisan con artist – shouldn’t it? Or do you believe the divine will of god will save you somehow?
January 26th, 2006 at 6:05 pmMost people seem to like their “chains” in all the other functional industrial social democracies around the world. The Swedes, Norwegians and Danes haven’t been coming here in droves since Leif Erickson discovered the New World.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:07 pmNo nations or states have ever survived, throughout recorded history, by adopting this type of regressive taxation policy. These idiots want to do away with taxation altogether. After Roe v Wade goes down, it will not spell the end of the right wing, like some think, they will go after income tax, (which I am opposed to anyway, as a Georgist, like Buckley), public schools, separation of church and state… Athenian democracy all over again. With the elite manipulating the idiot proles this time through the mass media. Their grandkids will curse them. I predict that future.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:12 pmNo answer from the right, RP?
No surprise, they have to refer to the playbook or something. I just wing it.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pmIt was Reagan & his boys strategy in the 80’s. Strangle the beast. Literally, that’s what they used to say.
They knew that it was political suicide to cut popular programs, so they figured to go round with massive tax breaks (go figure, primarily to the already wealthy) and let the deficits force congress to cut the programs.
Well golly, uncle dick cheney apparently thinks that’s still a good idea. And oh boy!, the only thing they’ve changed is that they are choking the already wealthy with obscene tax cuts. Go figure!
That’s republican responsibility for ya.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:14 pmThey’re not strangling the beast, or drowning it. They’re bleeding it dry… into the bank accounts of their friends.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:26 pmIsn’t what you say only true if there isn’t already significant debt held by the country? punch
You’re saying that %2.6 of GDP is significant? I shouldn’t even dignify you comment with a response. But maybe you should convince me that a person making $35K net with a credit card dept of $910 has significant debt.
btw, I’m only offering perspective taken directly from the CBO report that TP and you robots didn’t bother to read. There’s a lot of positive in their that TP chooses to ignore.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:26 pmNext time some dumb redneck wingnut tells you that every tax cut leads to an increase in revenue, ask if every tax increase leads to a decrease in tax revenue.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:27 pmI’ve said this here before but the bottom line budget deficit is after the transfer of money from the Social Security Trust. The on-budget deficit in FY04 was $514 billion and the on-budget deficit in FY05 was $504 billion. If you recalculate the on-budget deficits as a % of GDP,you’ll see that the figure creeps closer to 5%.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:28 pmActual deficits are masked by the increases in Social Security taxes collected which have continued to be above forecast as payrolls have increased through 2005.
The forecast by the CBO also reflects these transfers but nets on and off budget numbers on the bottom line.
1935: Social security will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
January 26th, 2006 at 6:29 pm1944: The G.I. Bill will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
1965: Medicare will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
1994: Health care will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
Conrad (editorial cartoon), July 1994
#37 If you’re going to make that comparison, then you should properly say the national deficit is 25% of federal tax revenue. That’s like a person who makes $35k net racks up $10k of credit card debt every year.
But if you insist on using this percentage of GDP (and I have serious issues with a formula for paying the national debt that involves 100% of everyone’s salary), then imagine a person making $35k who increases their credit card debt by $910 every year for 20 years. Then imagine that person tells you their credit card debt is insignificant.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:31 pmPardon my misspellings. I’m working on multiple things here. But you I find your comments amusing when my work gets tedious. Gotta go. PLH.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:31 pmbtw, I’m only offering perspective taken directly from the CBO report that TP and you robots didn’t bother to read. There’s a lot of positive in their that TP chooses to ignore.
Comment by Swamp Rabbit
There is a lot of positive in Iraq. We haven’t had to do a replay of the escape from Saigon… Yet.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:32 pmThere’s no secret to this.
Bush and conservatives set out to destroy the “Great Society” (social security, medicare, etc.) the only way they could – they spent us into debt so great, cut taxes on the rich, manuveured us into an endless and unnecessary war so that Americans are too terrified to cut the defense budget, so that there is only one place to cut spending. Everything else!
There will be no public education, there will be no social security, no medicare, no national health care…this is what Republican America means.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:34 pmPardon my misspellings. I’m working on multiple things here. But you I find your comments amusing when my work gets tedious. Gotta go. PLH.
Comment by Swamp Rabbit
Cut and run, they all do it… after declaring victory.
Wait and see…
January 26th, 2006 at 6:34 pmSwamp Rabbit, current dollar GDB is $12 trillion and the national debt is $8 trillion (on the books). Your hypothetical person making $35k has a credit card debt of $21k. I think you should dignify that with a response.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:35 pm#44,
Exactly right. Some people, enough, will believe that pigs can fly, until it’s too late.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:36 pmOne last thing regarding perspective. The current economy is great compared to the last time liberals controlled the government…see Jimmy Carter. Maybe you weren’t there, but I was. When it gets that bad I might have something negative to say about the economy.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:38 pmThey have been conducting a stealth war on America. It’s really quite stunning what they have achieved. The Stalinists and Maoists would envy them their success. That’s who they learned it from.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:39 pmOne last thing regarding perspective. The current economy is great compared to the last time liberals controlled the government…see Jimmy Carter. Maybe you weren’t there, but I was. When it gets that bad I might have something negative to say about the economy.
Comment by Swamp Rabbit
Complete bullshit, and I am older than you.
He got here awfully quick with his damage control and spin, didn’t he? Who pays you, chump fever?
January 26th, 2006 at 6:44 pm“One last thing regarding perspective. The current economy is great compared to the last time liberals controlled the government…see Jimmy Carter. Maybe you weren’t there, but I was. When it gets that bad I might have something negative to say about the economy. Swamp Rabbit”
Ah, the partisan brain in action. It doesn’t matter that we had a democratically controlled congress under a democratic president ‘Clinton’, the partisan cannot and will not acknowledge anything other than their own partisan unreasoned and irrational argument. It doesn’t matter that Carter inherited an oil embargo and Ford economic failure. It doesn’t matter that Reagan nearly bankrupted the country – only to be bested by BushI and BushII. And it doesn’t matter that the economy has exhibited the worst recovery since the great depression. Reality be damned, we have a partisan belief in control of Swamp Rabbit that cannot be shattered.
I feel a great deal of pity for you Swamp Rabbit. You are exactly the sort of partisan that the folks doing the brain scans were talking about. You let your emotions, your fear and your hate prevent you from having to think about or face reality. Clearly you are not well, so I forgive you for you weakness and inability to think as a rational and reasonable human being.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:48 pmThe national debt held by the public is $4.5 trillion. The other $3.5 trillion is inter-agency debt. Not quite the same implications in internal vs.external debt.
The equivalent measurement for business would be debt to income or debt to cash flow which for the government is NM.Debt to Net Worth,no that won’t work (although the Treasury Dept. does take a stab at equivalent taable resources). Net negative cash flow is fine for a while, but in the long run,the debt service will become a bigger burden.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:49 pm“You’re saying that %2.6 of GDP is significant? I shouldn’t even dignify you comment with a response. Swamp Rabbit”
But GDP is not the income of the nation, that’s what taxes are. To use this figure is like saying that the income taken out of your paycheck are miniscule compared to earnings of the company you work for. They frankly aren’t relevant.
When the entire budget/income is only 2 trillion dollars, then 300-500 billion is a significant chunk. It would be like you earning 50,000 a year and racking up 7,000-10,000 in credit card debt every year. In 10 years you would have racked up 70,000-100,000 in debt.
The equivalent currently is if a person who had 50,000 in income had credit card debts of 200,000. That’s the economic status of the country.
To understand what I’ve written will require that you use the reasoning part of your brain that’s always disabled when partisanship comes into play. I’m quite sure you’re incapable of disabling those emotional and fearful responses of yours long enough to actually absorb the reality that is our economy – but who knows, maybe you’ll pleasantly suprise me. And if you don’t, that’s OK, I forgive you. I understand that many partisan people are too weak of mind and spirit to disengage their partisanship long enough to actually reason through an argument.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:53 pm“Pardon my misspellings. I’m working on multiple things here. But you I find your comments amusing when my work gets tedious. Gotta go. PLH. Swamp Rabbit”
What does PLH mean, Partisans Lie Harmoniously? It certainly seems to apply.
But don’t worry, I don’t blame you. Clearly you have no control over your partisanship and are reacting entirely on an animal and emotional level. I forgive you for your fear and hysteria.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:55 pm**Stop Corruption Weekend: Saturday, 28 Jan 2006, 12:00 PM. Please RSVP today.**
Dear MoveOn member,
New evidence shows that lobbyists closely connected to indicted-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay were working for drug companies in the fight over the new Medicare drug law—funding the DeLay-Abramoff money machine.1
That is the sort of corruption we need to expose to the media and the American people and why your work this weekend is so important.
Starting tomorrow thousands of people across the country will gather to connect the dots between their representative and the Republican corruption in Washington—and they’ve invited the media. A few good articles in the local paper about citizens’ anger about Republican corruption could put your Congressperson on the run. The key to success is having a good turnout and that is why your participation is so important.
Here is the Stop Corruption event in your congressional district.
Stop Corruption Weekend
East Gate and Texas Avenue
East Gate-East on Texas Avenue
College Station, TX
Saturday, 28 Jan 2006, 12:00 PM
Please RSVP:
http://political.moveon.org/event/corruptionpetitioning/7781?id=6728-5539483-iMgo69×1vdtTzh_t0bsEnA&t=4
A really good turnout is needed for the media to start talking about corruption.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:03 pmEquating the government debt to individuals isn’t apt since individuals aren’t permitted to,legally,print money,nor can they legislate a pay increase as Congress can.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:04 pmRightPunch,
I am only a partisan in self-defense. I’m actually a contrarian that has always had a problem with authority.
Keep hitting them above the belt. I’ll hit them below.
:)
January 26th, 2006 at 7:18 pmBut don’t worry, I don’t blame you. Clearly you have no control over your partisanship and are reacting entirely on an animal and emotional level. I forgive you for your fear and hysteria.
Comment by RightPunch
I’m not so sure about that…
One of the failings of ideologues is their inability to see that everyone else isn’t necessarily an ideologue like them.
Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo 10/3/2003
David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, liked to point out that private property is a monopoly granted and maintained by public authority at the public’s expense.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:20 pmHolmes and Sunstein, “The Cost of Rights”, p 61.
Punch, and I forgive for never taking economics.
By comparing what a country owes and what it produces, the debt-to-GDP ratio indicates the country’s ability to pay back its debt. The ratio is a coverage ratio on a national level.
This measure gives an idea of the ability of a country to make future payments on its debt. The higher the debt-to-GDP ratio, the less likely the country will pay its debt back, and the higher its risk of default.
Higher GDP growth generates higher tax revenues.
That’s why the CBO report discusses debt relative to GDP.
Ask Optimist what PLH means.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:25 pmI wouldn’t trust a word out of his mouth.
Whether he is a partisan because he is a slave to his ideology or dogma, or he is an ideologue because he is a slave to his party.
Partisan, n. a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
Ideologue, n. 1 : an impractical idealist : Theorist
January 26th, 2006 at 7:33 pm2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Higher GDP growth generates higher tax revenues.
Theoretically, not axiomatically.
DROP IN DEFICIT IN 2005 DOES NOT MEAN TAX CUTS ARE
January 26th, 2006 at 7:38 pmSPURRING ECONOMIC AND REVENUE GROWTH;
NEW IRS DATA CONFIRM TAX CUTS LOSE REVENUE
by Richard Kogan, Isaac Shapiro, and Aviva Aron-Dine 1/6/2006
The Laffer Curve is working, just like it did for JFK and Reagan. Not all economists agree, but most do. And the CBO report provides compelling evidence that it’s working now. When we have an economy like Jimmy Carter’s you might convince me to a pessismist. Let me know when that happens because it’s not happening now no matter how hard you wish to be so.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:52 pmSo if I make a hundred grand per year, spend a hundred and fifty grand per year and stash away fifty grand per year in savings and am in the 20%(avg.) tax bracket, how much would my heirs get when I went to the great ATM in the sky? Scheet, I don’t even have an MBA and understand this administration’s economic policies.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:56 pmThe future looks grim.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:24 pmMy children and grandchildren will pay the price for all of this that we have been unable to stop. I will leave a record for them noting my efforts to remove this dangerous and reckless administration, so they might remember me with fondness and not curse my memory.
The Laffer curve!
David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director during his first administration and one of the early proponents of supply-side economics, maintained that the Laffer curve was not to be taken literally — at least not in the economic environment of the 1980s United States. In The Triumph of Politics, he writes:
[T]he whole California gang had taken [the Laffer curve] literally (and primitively). The way they talked, they seemed to expect that once the supply-side tax cut was in effect, additional revenue would start to fall, manna-like, from the heavens. Since January, I had been explaining that there is no literal Laffer curve.
You are making us laugh, alright, swamp fever.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pm[...] C’mon. [...]
January 26th, 2006 at 8:44 pmJanuary 26th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
“Punch, and I forgive for never taking economics.
By comparing what a country owes and what it produces, the debt-to-GDP ratio indicates the country’s ability to pay back its debt. The ratio is a coverage ratio on a national level.”
Thanks for the forgiveness, and I understand how people that like to play word games (like economists) have their lingo – but it doesn’t change the fact that our debt relative to our tax income is quite high. You can decide that within your partisan lense that this is ‘OK’ or not, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are racking up 300-500 billion a year in debut relative to a 2 billion dollar a year tax base. That’s a pretty silly number for a rational person. Economists always talk about theories of why this is OK, but lots of economists also thought that it was a good idea to support the economic policies that went into creating the great depression – so one would hardly call it a reliable field of study.
You also forgot to mention all of the debt held by the 50 states. We are a federal system, and the state level debts affect and undermine our overal fiscal health in a way that doesn’t exist in other countries. When you combine the debt of the states it becomes even more troubling.
Now while our debt to GDP ratio is ‘average’, we hold an enormous amount of debt for a single nation. This means fiscal and interest rate changes can have a significant enough volume effect that puts us in a different situation than other countries.
If you took an economics course as you so rightfully imply, maybe you read at how at the current ‘liberal’ projects of debt – presuming that we reverse the failed policies of bush – we would be at 249 percent of GDP in 2075. The US already saves so little that it can’t buy its own debt, and countries such as China have already begun to lose a taste for our debt. I’m not sure who the conservatives believe will buy this debt, but maybe you can pull out your piggy bank and help out.
“This measure gives an idea of the ability of a country to make future payments on its debt. The higher the debt-to-GDP ratio, the less likely the country will pay its debt back, and the higher its risk of default. Swamp Rabbit”
And yet, haven’t lots of countries defaulted or survived despite this assumption?
“Higher GDP growth generates higher tax revenues. Swamp Rabbit”
Ah, isn’t this more partisan bias here? After all, you say we have an increase in GDP, yet our taxes relative to that GDP have lowered. Can you explain this cognitive disconnect? I doubt it takes a degree in economics, but it might require the reasoning center of the brain to be used – which is apparently difficult when one only lives in a partisan world.
“That’s why the CBO report discusses debt relative to GDP. Swamp Rabbit”
That’s because most people wouldn’t imagine that any government would be biased and silly enough to cut taxes as an economic stimulus and to greatly increase national debt unnecessarily.
“Ask Optimist what PLH means. Swamp Rabbit”
I realize what it stands for. Partisans Live Hatred.
You do realize don’t you that your debt arguments mirror those of partisan democrats 20 years ago don’t you? I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe you now. I guess it just goes to show you that partisan beliefs sway with the prevailing politicians – but a noble and righteous mind prefers truth :)
January 26th, 2006 at 9:19 pmSwamp Rabbit,
Partisans always make me Laffer until I’m bent into a Curve. Thanks for the humor, it’s so amusing to see how bent out of shape, and how unthinking the partisan advocate can be. I forgive you for unwittingly providing such humor, I know it wasn’t your intention.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:21 pmoff topic … gwbush is coming to Nashville Opryland Hotel Feb1 time 11.00 to 1230 we are planning a massive reaction of Unwelcome if anyone lives or waants to join us in making bushco unwelcome ,this is the time right after his Unstate Of The Non Union address.He will be s[eaking to the Correction Corp Of America ,bet we could find him a cell. CCA is a huge donor to bushco.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:38 pmJanuary 26th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
#22
January 26th, 2006 at 10:08 pmI’m here a little late but I must heap praise on Giacomo for raising the level of incoherence to hitherto unknown heights. Keep up the good work, G-man!
purvis ames —
this is for your eyes only.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
After 3 more years of Bush corruption, there will not be a dime left in Washington, DC for anybody! The government will be bankrupt and half the US population will be unemployed and many starving to death too! WWIII will be waging around Israel and nuclear bombs will be exploding even on America! Thank the Bush Regime criminals for END!
January 27th, 2006 at 1:24 amI know I’m late for the party but this is too much:
“One last thing regarding perspective. The current economy is great compared to the last time liberals controlled the government…see Jimmy Carter. Maybe you weren’t there, but I was. When it gets that bad I might have something negative to say about the economy.
Comment by Swamp Rabbit — January 26, 2006
Urm ,… remember OPEC? If you lived during that era (doubtful given your past statements) you’d know that the primary reason for the “malaise” was high gas prices, brought on by OPEC’s decision to drastically decrease production. Swampy, how can we take you seriously when you can’t even produce credible spin (much less the truth)?
But keep trying – you make us look good by comparison.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:09 amat any point you don’t feel you are paying enough taxes, send a check to the US Treasury for as much as you want.
it’s Spending, and not taxes that are the problem IMHO.
we’ve had the public debate and I’d say zero to a local percentage of voters want spending cuts in their state or jurisdiction….it’s “cut the other guys, my politician is doing a good job”
voters get the gov’t they elect.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:41 amIf they get their way, social programs will be eliminated entirely. Just look at how they “reduced spending†in the last budget. This is the blueprint and the cutting has already begun.
Comment by Southwest Bob #7
SW Bob,
You’re exactly right!
We must all remember that ideologically the conservatives want to destroy th social safety net, and make the poor more dependent upon and slavish to the demands of the wealthy class…
The poor/middle working class red state inbreds vote against their own economic self interests mainly because they believe (erroneously) that they too can become a part of the monied oppressive “patrons” class (pure greed and selfishness), as well as in order to keep their foots on the necks of women and minorities…
Installing Bushiva as president was the moral equivalent of implanting a self-destruct mechanism into the social and political heart of America…
January 27th, 2006 at 8:06 amWhen we have an economy like Jimmy Carter’s you might convince me to a pessismist. Let me know when that happens because it’s not happening now no matter how hard you wish to be so.
Comment by Swamp Rabbit #62
Swamp wretch,
You inbreds are really serious about “creating reality”…
Things may be wonderful for you economically speaking, but there’s enough misery permeating this country that even those who aren’t experiencing it personally should have the humanity, dignity, and compassion to be concerned about those who are…
But then that’s a trademark of you selfish, greedy inbreds, you care only about yourselves…
Your time will come…and soon…
January 27th, 2006 at 8:14 amDano347 swamp rabbit didn’t have to live in 1979, because the international oil market is operating at almost peak capacity, with the fiasco that our bubble-boy led administration has created in Iraq combined with the civil war in nigeria the market probably will be unable to provide enough oil for all the consumers that want to purchase it. Just like 1979, however this time it won’t be because the market is being manipulated but the market has no more reserbe capacity, and when there is more demand than supply all these good dicipiles of Adam Smith can tell us what happens the price rises to the level the market can bare, maybe $100 per barrel, maybe higher, but $100 per barrel translates to $4-5 dollars per gallon, which is higher even adjusted for inflation than 1979. So swamp rabbit and everybody else may have their very own personal expeirence to relate from and won’t need to recite from the daily talking points, but this time the OPEC countries won’t be able to ramp up production even if they wanted to. So stagflation could become not a Reagan talking point but a perminate reality.
January 27th, 2006 at 8:26 amit’s Spending, and not taxes that are the problem IMHO.
Comment by richb
You try living without spending.
Let us know how that goes from your mom’s basement.
It’s no different with governments. It depends who gets elected and spends how much on what and how much waste and corruption is encouraged and this administration is finally #1 in at least that category.
You are a simple-minded moron who has made a whole political philosophy out of the phrase “Fuck off!”
You and Grover Norquist are as useles as a plumber’s helper in an outhouse.
My father always told me two things about spending: Always spend money on the best item if it was important enough for you to want it to last. You will save money in the long run, i.e. think long term.
Always spend money on your home (infrastructure) first.
Without a roof over your head and money (surplus) in the bank, you were one step away from the street.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:33 amIn other words, you would never find my father in a Wal-Mart. If my fathet were still alive, and more people of his generation, there would be no Wal-Marts.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:36 amG. Gordon if Sam was alive his kids wouldn’t be getting away with the present Walmart either. Sam’s probably spinning in his grave as fast as Tip is for all tweetys crap
January 27th, 2006 at 9:51 amEventually we reacha point where debt service (Interest & required principle payments) will take over a greater and greater portion of the budget squeezing out other spending. With this administration and this congress I imagine the spending cuts will be for social programs while the military’s share continues to grow.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:56 am#84 Or the chinese stop taking our IOU’s
January 27th, 2006 at 10:58 amthe debt-to-GDP ratio indicates the country’s ability to pay back its debt.
Yes, and I have a problem when that formula involves 100% of my salary.
It’s a Republican debt. Let them pay it back. Under Bush, we have a $2 trillion increase in debt. Sixty million voted for him in 2004. That comes out to $33,000 each. Pay up, suckers.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:35 amCynical,
I wish we could operate under two political economies here, as an experiment. Nevermind the fact other countries do it and disprove all their bullshit free-market, supply-side voodoo economic theories, we need to run the experiment here and see who ends up back in the 19th century first. That side would be the loser.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:59 pmAnother Great depression might bring about my vision of a single world economy, as the currencies of the world lose value in relation to goods and the world devolves into a barter system. I would just rather avoid it if at all possible. Impeach Bush now, before the harm done is completely irrevocable.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:44 pmSWAMPWRETCH:
The Dearborn Truck Plant, which represents one portion of the Rouge facility, has 2,600 union employees and makes the F-150 pickup truck, the best selling vehicle in the United States.
A Ford spokesman told CNNMoney the company supported the move, although it had not been extended to the other North American manufacturing facilities.
Officials with UAW Local 600, who backed the announcement, are scheduled to conduct talks with management next week to finalize the details and discuss expanding the ban across the entire Rouge facility, union president Jerry Sullivan told CNNMoney.
“There has to be something put in place to grab people’s attention and to make a statement that this is a serious thing,” said Sullivan, whose union represents approximately 8,000 workers at the larger Rouge complex. “It’s up to us to stand up and do what is right and to drive a vehicle from the company you work for.”
The Dearborn Truck Plant parking policy will allow vehicles made by non-U.S. Ford brands such as Mazda, Volvo and Land Rover, Sullivan said.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:39 pm#87 We already have that to a degree. Look at the states which implement so-called conservative economic policies. And look at the economic performance of liberal states.
They don’t hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our success in the face of their failures.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:06 pmOnline Filibuster email to key Democrats…
http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.1387935/k.5362/Fax_to_Filibuster_Alito/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp
It can’t hurt…
January 27th, 2006 at 6:00 pm#81 why the personal attack, and terse language. I don’t live in my ‘mom’s basement’, she is deceased and I don’t appreciate the slam.
I enjoy discourse on political subjects and am perfectly willing to listen to other points, and if you see my posts on other threads you’d see that.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:48 pm