The source for this is said to be the CBO.
Back in 2001, the CBO projected a cumulative surplus of $6 trillion
By marcus Follow Fri, 6 Apr 2012, 9:55pm 9,411 views 84 comments
In Glendale CA 91206
Watch (0) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (1) Dislike 
« First « Previous Viewing Comments 45-84 of 84 Last » See most liked comments
|
marcus is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
470 comments
socal2 says
The .com bust mostly killed NASDAQ stocks and effected Wall St. to some extent too but was very minor as far as most recessions go. 9/11 didn't have much of an economic impact either, it was Bush's reactions to that event (ie. wars + major deficit spending + blowing the credit/housing bubble) that had the major effect.
As of course you can easily see above in the chart I posted.
Follow
Befriend
235 comments
iwog says
Try making that argument to the voters this Fall.
I think most people had a basic understanding that extending healthcare insurance to millions of more people was going to cost alot of money.
But Obama sold us snake-oil and used his temporary political majorities to cram down a sloppy bill that will likely get overthrown by the Supreme Court this June.
Follow
Befriend
235 comments
tts says
The chart you posted shows virtually every category of debt expanding since Obama was elected in 2008.
At what point does Obama and the Democrats get to share some responsibility for our economic condition?
Do you blame Bush and Republicans for the economic basket cases in California, Illinois and New York and the pension bombs we have no prayer of covering? If only Guv Moonbeam could print money!
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
socal2 says
When you can fucking name the bills where the Democrats spent all the money. I've been asking for this since Obama was elected. Obama can take responsibility for:
1. A stimulus package worth $1 trillion and spent on infrastructure projects.
2. Obamacare which has cost about $0 so far.
3. Possibly as much as $200 billion in bailouts however I can't find it.
4. A tax cut for working people which assholes in your political camp lie about every single day.
I'm sure you'll post back with all the stuff I'm missing.............or not.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
socal2 says
I don't need to appeal to the voters because I'm talking to you. You made an absurd claim that Obama was a liar because he made a promise about signing a health care bill not adding to the debt, when the CBO agreed with him and the only dissent is a conservative study done years later and showing a cost of a tiny fraction of Medicare D.
This is the type of horse shit you need to wade through when discussing Obama with a Republican.
Did you have this type of skepticism when Bush said the Iraq war would cost $40 billion? I bet you didn't.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Relatively speaking, the Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans.
1) Democrats = tax and spend
2) Republicans = borrow and spend
Option 1 is relatively responsible compared to option 2.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
wthrfrk80 says
It's totally responsible versus totally irresponsible. The right wing Machiavellian starve the beast idea is close to working.
Step 1) Do huge deficit spending on tax breaks to the rich, wars for the military industrial complex, and subsidies to your corporate pals.
Step 2) When the resulting deficit crisis explodes, say oh, look at the projections for social security and medicare, and "safety net" spending. "We have to do the responsible thing and cut all of those."
Morality is in the eyes of the beholder.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
marcus says
Well then how can anyone say, for example, "the right wing 'starve the beast' strategy is immoral"? If all morality is relative, then everyone simply does what is in their best interest regardless of who is hurt in the process.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
That's not what I meant. What I meant is, interesting that many right wingers have what once was called the "moral majority" view, later it was called family values, when in fact I think that stealing from the people and fucking them over intentionally is immoral.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
470 comments
socal2 says
I believe you're either being facetious or trolling at this point but on the off chance I'm wrong:
The congress/president that forms and passes the bills gets to take the credit/blame for said bills cost/impact.
There are lots of reasons to dislike Obama but the deficit or the recession aren't valid ones. Those are things he inherited from Bush.
socal2 says
I blame Repubs and Dems for that since those are problems that were allowed to develop over decades, both parties and several presidents played a role in causing that mess. Instead of playing the "politics as football" game where you blindly support your side no matter what you should learn to focus on issues that you support rather than "teams", the issues are what really matter in the end.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,488 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
socal2 says
The critical economic mistakes were made 1995-2006.
The Republicans were in control of everything but the WH (1995-2000) and Senate (2001-2002).
However (as TTS says immediately above) framing this as a Team Red vs Team Blue issue is muddying things. This is really a Conservative vs Liberal issue.
The mistakes that were made were driven by conservative ideologies -- free trade with China (MFN) & Mexico (NAFTA), "Drill baby Drill" as our sole national energy policy, Deregulation of the FIRE sector (Gramm–Leach–Bliley, eliminating regulatory oversight of lending 2001-2005), "Reagan Proved Deficits Don't Matter" (Cheney), refusing to reform private medical services but just subsidize them with Federal spending (Medicare C & D), and the wars of course.
Now, all of this was active policy-making by Republicans, and they were able to find enough red-state / "centrist" Democrats to go along with these hare-brained ideas.
As a result of these policies, our cumulative trade deficit with China is over $3T, foreigners now hold over $5T of our sovereign debt (100 million man-years of labor @ $25/hr), we're still over-reliant on $120+ oil, we're still in the hangover period from the 1999-2006 consumer credit bubble:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=6q1
and we're still paying 2-3X the OECD per-capita on medical costs, $8000 per capita when everybody else is in the $3000 range.
You guys fucked everything up 1995-2006, and if you were intellectually honest with yourself you'd be able to see it.
And what's even worse is that the Republicans want to double-down on all these past mistakes. More war spending, more tax cuts, more trade deficits (the two Republican debates I checked didn't talk about our $700B+/yr trade deficit at all), no attempt to reform our wasteful $2.5T/yr medical sector, heckling shit like Solyndra instead of proposing their own R&D initiatives.
The Republicans (remaining in control of the House and at least in a blocking position in the Senate) are going to continue driving this country straight into the ground economically. Things are going to start getting brutal later this decade. I don't plan on being here, fwiw, I think events are just dialed in now and there is no escape other than a) being independently wealthy to afford living in a 'Fortress' or b) GTFO.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Delurking says
So it's mostly a red state blue state problem.
I share most of your sentiments and I'm looking for a new place to call home. South America is top of my list because of language and climate, but Asia has appeal too.
Blue collar Republicans simply have no idea they are committing mass suicide. It's very tragic.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Delurking says
I think you're correct on all that, except for the "drill baby drill" assertion. It wasn't until after prices spiked that domestric drilling activity spiked. It's hard to blame anyone for using oil when it was $15-20/bbl in the late 90's and early 2000s.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Delurking says
I think you're right.
iwog says
Yep.
Eventually it will get so bad that there will be a big political re-alignment. That's what happened during the Great Depression: the "New Deal Coalition" was formed.
Eventually the economy will be so bad that Blue Collar Republicans (Reagan Democrats) will have no choice but to abandon the Republican Party. If you're starving in a cardboard box, fear of scary minorities isn't your biggest problem. Those folks will go back into the Democrat party forcing the Democrats to become more socially conservative. Not going back to the 1950's, but maybe just the 80's or 90's. The Republicans will again be the minority party of monied interests (sorry Huntingdon Moneyworth III). The Democrats will regain the "permanenty majority" status.
Essentially, it will just be reverting back to the days before the Reagan Revolution. But there will be some serious economic pain before that happens.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,488 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
sure, but we're paying for that national lassitude now. When I came back to the states in mid-2000 I bought a Miata, partially for the decent gas mileage and partially with an eye for EV conversion later, since I understood the sub-$2 price regime was coming to an end.
Clinton did start the:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_a_New_Generation_of_Vehicles
dunno what happened with that other than the Bush Administration shit-canning it.
There was some other Clinton-era R&D effort too that was more of an industry boondoggle. Might have been that one, I forget now. Part of the problem of the 1990s was the electorate putting Republicans back in power in 1994 just stopped the move to the left cold. The resulting gridlock was good for limiting expansion of government at least, which was partially responsible for the brief surplus of 1999-2000.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Delurking says
Agree, but it's hard to convince voters that we desperately need high-MPG vehicles when gasoline is $1.20/gallon. People were even trading up to massive SUVs during that time. We're incredibly short-sighted creatures aren't we? So I can't really blame politicians (of either party) for not restricting gasoline use. Heck, we're the nation that invented "car culture." Remember those old songs by the Beach Boys? "And we'll have fun fun fun until daddy takes the T-Bird away..."
Follow
Befriend
9 threads
243 comments
Washington, DC
socal2 says
You "remember" wrong: The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. That's after Bush took office, so all he inherited was a $237 billion surplus.
Follow
Befriend
235 comments
tts says
And Democrats got total control of Congress in 2006.
Look, I am not denying that Bush and the Republicans spent irresponsibly during the Bush years. Why do you think the Teaparty wing of the Republicans sprung up in recent years?
I am just pointing out that the Democrats were also a big part of the spending binge - and they had a chance to undo all the "Bush Tax Cuts" when Obama had majorities in 2009, but he pussed out and wasted our country's time on Obamacare for 3 years.
Again, at least the Republicans are now paying lip-service to the idea of getting our deficits in order. Whereas the Democrats are still acting like there is no big problem (as evident of their lack of budgets or courage to raise taxes or cut spending). If Romney wins in November and the Republicans take back the Senate and its business as usual in terms of spending, I will be ready for a 3rd party.
Follow
Befriend
235 comments
tts says
Come on man. Its not Republican or Conservative policies in California, Illinois or New York that has ruined these big states.
Its totally the failed Blue State model of big expensive, unionized government and high taxes.
Granted California has had some pathetic RINO Governors (Arnold), but the California executive position is one of the weakest in the nation and the California Legislature has been dominated by FAR LEFT liberals forever. FFS - the Libs in California's legislature won't even approve Guv Moonbeams modest budget reforms he proposed this year.
I assume you are aware of the terrible pension bomb facing California municipal and State workers? No amount of increased taxes is going to square that circle. Are you really going to blame both parties for these unsustainable union policies and benefits?
Follow
Befriend
235 comments
Delurking says
Love it. Republicans were in control of EVERYTHING, except the Presidency, the Senate, Governorships, State Legislatures, Media, Academia, Hollywood, Education, Unions........but its all their fault.
It's never the Democrats fault. Ever. Even when Democrats hold total majorities.
BTW - are you really against free trade agreements? Do you think we don't live in a globalized world and we can really keep 20th century manufacturing jobs going in America so we can all buy $5,000 IPods and $70,000 GM cars to support expensive union manufacturing?
Both Left and Right better get through their heads that we no longer hold our post WWII monopolies on industry and that we are going to have to scrape, claw and compete with the rest of the planet.
Stop living in the past. We need to forge a new future and it is going to be hard and competitive.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,488 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
socal2 says
Democrats in the minority failed to stop the $2T wars, the Medicare C & D bullshit, and the $3T tax cuts, Gramm–Leach–Bliley, Greenspan's malfeasance at the Fed.
Democrats in the majority passed NAFTA and were silent on our $700B/yr trade deficit.
are you really against free trade agreements?
Free trade, in the abstract, is great. But persistent trade deficits, above and beyond the Triffin Dilemma considerations, are immensely harmful to the long-term prospect of this nation.
We need to forge a new future and it is going to be hard and competitive.
That's not our problem. How can you be competitive in manufacturing when the line labor rate is ~$300/month?
The trade with China and Mexico has been an immense wealth transporter INTO this
country -- for every $1 in wealth we've sent to them we've gotten $5 in wealth in return.
But this transaction is not completed yet due to the deficit we've incurred -- we owe the world $5T in sovereign debt alone, as I mentioned 100 million man-years of labor at $25/hr. Private debt held by foreign interests is no doubt of the same magnitude.
This nation has been living on credit and bullshit for a very long time now:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=6sy
and it's going to come someday when we'll have to pay the piper.
What we really need to do is learn from our mistakes. The mistakes the conservatives in power -- Democrat and Republican -- have been making for a generation now.
keep 20th century manufacturing jobs going in America so we can all buy $5,000 IPods and $70,000 GM cars to support expensive union manufacturing?
for a putative hard-nosed reality-based person you sure spout the bullshit
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
socal2 says
I think you're right.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
470 comments
socal2 says
By which point the damage (ie. wars, tax cuts, medicare part D) had already been done.
socal2 says
Because the Koch Bros funded that POS faux astroturf campaign that is why.
http://www.alternet.org/media/129656
Lately they've pulled most of their funding and so the Tea Party has already begun to fade now that it is no longer of any use to the Republicans since its been successfully co-oped.
socal2 says
See that is a good reason to dislike Obama and the Democrats but that is also a very far cry from what you were saying earlier, which was essentially to lay most or all of the blame for our current deficits on Obama.
socal2 says
Lip service is all you'll get from them. Oh they'll happily cut social program funding and even cut Medicare and Social Security if they can even though those programs are all being paid into by Americans...and then they'll take the money they've saved by cutting those programs and give it to the military or banks or mega corps. And the deficit will just get bigger. They've been doing that for years so I have no clue at all why you'd believe they do different.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
470 comments
socal2 says
Oh god not this crap again. Before we go much further on this topic you're going to have to present some data and not talking points before I take you seriously. Case in point, taxes aren't very high at all in most states, even in supposedly very blue "socialist" states like CA which in reality isn't blue or socialist at all:
socal2 says
Where are you getting your information from? Freep or Drudge? Quit reading that crap R propaganda. The CA legislature is anything but dominated by the FAR LEFT, which as far as I can tell basically doesn't even exist anymore in American politics. There are no Communist Party reps in congress, and nearly no Socialist or Green Party reps in congress either IIRC. The Democrats are anything but FAR LEFT, they're FIRE economy corporatist just like the Repubs these days, so stop being hyperbolic. Propositions 8, 13, and 187 are a but few landmark far right laws that were passed in CA off the top of my head.
socal2 says
Damn straight I am. That problem was brought up and failed to be addressed multiple times over the years by several state legislatures and governors who decided to play kick the can instead of fix things. The retirement funds were mismanaged heavily (ie. buying CDO's and MBS at the top of the housing bubble as AAA investments) in particular this decade, its got nothing to do with "unsustainable union policies and benefits". Many people paid into those retirement funds fair and square and need the money they were promised in order to live when they retire.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
This just in to refute Marcus original post:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/5-trillion-man-debt-has-increased-under-obama-502776147648456
And there you have it.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
You didn't refute anything. No one disputes the increase in debt while Obama has been in the White House.
The original post ONLY deals with who is responsible for the $5 trillion debt through legislation and executive power.
I've explained this to you before, yet you persist on being wantonly ignorant about the topic of the thread. When someone attempts to discuss it with you, you run and hide only to return days later with a completely irrelevant link.
Unfortunately your pathetic behavior is pretty much par for Republicans now.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwog, perhaps I missed it...specifically where is it stated that the original post deals ONLY with who is responsible for the $5 TRILLION debt through legislation and executive power??????
BTW, I love your vitriolic attacks, it means I struck a nerve.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
This isn't complicated. What do you think the original post is about?
The $5 trillion is clearly visible in the graph. Just over $1 trillion of it is blue (Obama policies) and almost all of that is the stimulus bill.
The rest is all green, indicating it's debt created from the policies of George Bush and the Republican congress. Most of us understand that Bush bills like Medicare D and war adventurism lock spending into the budget for decades in advance.
You countered the graph by posting several links indicating gross debt increase under Obama. You either can't read the graph, or you're being disingenuous. Which is it?
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwog - I. W.O. G. - I Was Only Guessing.
As usual, you failed and refused to answer my simple question. And is there really a difference between "debt created" and "gross debt increase"? Sure sounds like the same thing to me.
And yes, Bush spent money like a drunken liberal on steroids. On his watch, eight years in all, he increased the debt $4.9 Trillion.
Your hero, in three and one half years, has increased the debt $5.0 Trillion with utopian policies guaranteed to saddle future generations with debt which they will have no benefit of. I'd say thats pretty close to being tyranny.
BTW, you're in Lafayatte, right? Lafayette is stuck in the vortex, between Berkeley and Mt Diablo, isn't it? That explains a lot.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
Honest Abe says
Abe is incapable of understanding that Bush policies still in place during Obama's preidency would have added to the debt (during Obama's Preidency) even if the economy was way better than it is.
But since it fell off the cliff in a financial crisis, lowering revenues (but with Bush tax cuts and war spending still in place), it accounts for a big part of the debt he wants to blame on Obama.
If that lie basically makes it easier for you to condemn Obama, okay. SOme of us just wish you were a little more intellectually honest.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
Really? Specifically which policies have cost $5 trillion? (time to run away again)
Honest Abe says
I answered your question in detail and tried to explain it to you. The original post is a graph therefore asking me to quote it is bloody moronic.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/5-trillion-man-debt-has-increased-under-obama-502776147648456
Here, again, is the post that shows how much the debt ($5 Trillion) has increased under oBAmA.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Facts don't matter to Honest Abe.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
Which again has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.
Some of that $5 trillion is Medicare D. Are you blaming Obama for the deficit spending under the Medicare D bill that occurred while he was president? I asked you this question. I'll ask it again. You'll run away again:
iwog says
Follow
Befriend (2)
26 threads
502 comments
Chicago, IL
Iwog says, "Some of that $5 trillion is Medicare D. Are you blaming Obama for the deficit spending under the Medicare D bill that occurred while he was president?
"
The money spent for part D under his watch is certainly his responsibility.
How can any democrat look at this chart and still vote for these buffoons? Obama campaigned on "Change." This graph very clearly shows the tiny fraction of a difference between the dems and repubs. He lied.
Conclusion: The democrats are indistinguishable from the republicans, and Obama lied.
Democrats are too busy blaming bush or chasing a racism boogeyman to think properly re their own leadership.
Follow
Befriend (2)
26 threads
502 comments
Chicago, IL
marcus says
This response to red political pavlovian programming sounds full of the blue version of the same.
In the spirit of intellectually honesty, please list the exact lie you are discussing and the party you feel is lying.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
CBOEtrader says
Because Obama didn't violate federal law and cancel the program? Why would you make an affirmative statement like this without any support then transition to.........
CBOEtrader says
Easy. Black and white.
CBOEtrader says
Obama attempted nearly every piece of legislation he campaigned on. Change was blocked at every turn by hostile Republicans. I blame Obama for not cleaning house in his cabinet choices, but like I said......black and white. Obama wants to save the ship but is prevented from doing so. Republicans are pointing more cannons into the hull.
CBOEtrader says
Buffett rule defeated in the Senate 51 to 44. Tax cut for the rich passed in the house almost entirely along party lines. By indistinguishable you mean black and white right?
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
CBOEtrader says
See quote.
marcus says
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
a rather stupid law.. it seems both President Obama and Dems have forgotten what the meaning of Capital Gains and Losses. They call it fairness.. but they dont even use the term Capital Gains anymore.
Another example of incompentence in understanding Finance and Economics.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
Amazing! You call it a stupid law, then abandon your point completely without even an attempt to explain why it's a stupid law.
Why should taxes on capital gains and dividends be 15% for people netting over $1 million per year while someone who actualy works for a living must pay more? Usually when I try to teach a Republican to actually think, it's futile. Prove me wrong.