Attention: Deficit!

[Tricky]

Is it time to do something about this?

Budget office projects U.S. deficit to hit $477 billion

In its annual wintertime economic outlook, lawmakers' nonpartisan fiscal analyst also estimated that the deficit would ease to $362 billion in 2005, according to numbers obtained by The Associated Press.

The budget office also estimated that deficits for the decade ending in 2013 would total nearly $2.4 trillion. The August report foresaw deficits totaling $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

Is the sheer size of these numbers causing people to become numbed to them? How long can we continue to rack up such debt before we hit the wall?

Hard to believe that we had a surplus when this decade started. And it's getting worse. The projected deficit for the next decade has nearly doubled since August. Oh, but consumer confidence is up, so we're okay.

 

[Tmy]

Funny how the Dems "Tax and Spend" tagline causes people to freak out but the GW's "Borrow and Spend" doesnt seem to be a big deal. The country has a credit card mentality. Buy now worry about the bill later.

 

[Grammatron]

Funny how the Dems "Tax and Spend" tagline causes people to freak out but the GW's "Borrow and Spend" doesnt seem to be a big deal. The country has a credit card mentality. Buy now worry about the bill later.

They both cause me to "freak out."

 

[a_unique_person]

Fact is, that since Dubya doesn't want it to be a big issue, it's not. A few areas of the media will mention it from time to time, the information is freely available, but you won't get any Fox channels hammering it until people feel it is the end of the world unless the problem is fixed.

 

[WildCat]

Fact is, that since Dubya doesn't want it to be a big issue, it's not. A few areas of the media will mention it from time to time, the information is freely available, but you won't get any Fox channels hammering it until people feel it is the end of the world unless the problem is fixed.

It's not an issue because not a single candidate has offered a plan to reduce it. Even the Dems who want to raise taxes have new spending programs far exceeding the tax increases they want.

But that little issue isn't nearly as important as how good they look flipping pancakes or sitting in a diner they wouldn't dream of going near in a non-election year.

Bush won't put the brakes on Republican spending because they need to bring home the pork (it's free, right? ) in an election year.

It's the American way - gimme gimme gimme!

 

[jnelso99]

Is the sheer size of these numbers causing people to become numbed to them?

On Saturday Night Live some time ago, Dennis Miller said something like this on his "Weekend Update" (working from memory so it's probably not what he really said):

The deficit is expected to hit two trillion dollars in the next few years. To help you visualize it [pulls out a dollar bill] imagine this is a ONE TRILLION dollar bill. To pay off the deficit, it would take TWO of these suckers! Makes you think, don't it?

 

[Number Six]

A half a trillion here and a half a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about some serious money.

I really don't understand it that well. I mean, from a common sense standpoint it seems absolutely crazy. As a regular person you think "Don't run up bills that you can't pay" but for whatever reason the government just operates differently.

I think one thing economist-types point to is that what really matters is what percent of the GDP the deficit is and I think I read that while that percentage was high it wasn't alarmingly high yet. But still you think a country could run up surpluses in better times to make up for the worst times, which inevitably come along. We've had a relatively large number of workers (the baby boomers) relative to retirees for a long time. Those people (a) were paying taxes, (b) not taking Social Security and (c) not using many health resources since they were fairly young. And despite all that we've racked up a $5 trillion or so debt. What happens when all those people retire and those three things I listed are reversed?

The US pays something like $200 billion in interest on its debt each year. People made a big deal what a huge amount of money the $87 billion spent on the Iraq war but if the US had no debt then there'e be enough money for two or three of those _every single year_. (Not that I'm saying the US ought to have two or three wars every year...I'm just using it as a point about money.) How can it not be in a country's interest _not_ to have debt so high? Maybe I'm missing something in all this. Economists that spend their lives studying this stuff don't seem to get alarmed about it all so maybe when you figure out all the details it's just not as bad as it seems.

 

[Cain]

Number Six wrote:

(Not that I'm saying the US ought to have two or three wars every year...I'm just using it as a point about money.) How can it not be in a country's interest _not_ to have debt so high? Maybe I'm missing something in all this. Economists that spend their lives studying this stuff don't seem to get alarmed about it all so maybe when you figure out all the details it's just not as bad as it seems.

Actually the IMF recently issued a report sharply criticizing the U.S.'s fiscal outlook. That's suprising for two reasons: 1) The IMF is basically controlled by the US. 2) The IMF usually critiques third world countries.

It charged that our debt threatens the financial stability of the world economy. It could raise interest rates as much as 1%.

The report warns that the United States' net financial obligations to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 percent of its total economy within a few years — "an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country," according to the fund, that could play havoc with the value of the dollar and international exchange rates.

-- NYT, Jan. 8, 2004

Republicans are probably operating off a "starve the beast" mentality: A huge debt will constrain government spending.

 

[a_unique_person]

The fact is, governments do and can run up large debts, and do so reasonably. The fact that Dubya just did without blinking an eye just indicates the lie of the horror of how bad government debt is intrinsically.

Of course governments have to manage debt, like all of us do, but the fixation on condemming any debt, in any colourful terms that come to mind, is just a result of trying to remove attention from the intention of undermining a democratic government that has a useful (regulated) role in people's lives.

The amazing thing about Dubya's deficit is that it is being blown on about the most wasteful of all spending targets, the military.

 

[ssibal]

The fact is, governments do and can run up large debts, and do so reasonably. The fact that Dubya just did without blinking an eye just indicates the lie of the horror of how bad government debt is intrinsically.

Of course governments have to manage debt, like all of us do, but the fixation on condemming any debt, in any colourful terms that come to mind, is just a result of trying to remove attention from the intention of undermining a democratic government that has a useful (regulated) role in people's lives.

The amazing thing about Dubya's deficit is that it is being blown on about the most wasteful of all spending targets, the military.

Your wording is strange, you say governments then you switch it with 'Dubya.' So are you attacking government in general or just Bush? Because, here in the U.S. the president does not have absolute authority over spending, to attribute a deficit (or a surplus) to a president is silly.

 

[Ladewig]

Borrowing is not inherently bad. If the government (or individual) borrowed money at 1% interest rate and used the money to improve infrastructure or make the place safer, then it could be called a wise move. Unfortunately, I don't see our government accomplishing those types of things very effectively.

The goofy statements and actions by both parties make me wish that there were a qualifying exam for the office of president. A bit of geography, history, diplomacy, economics, and a honking big section on Constitutional law.

 

[BTox]

Hard to believe that we had a surplus when this decade started. And it's getting worse. The projected deficit for the next decade has nearly doubled since August. Oh, but consumer confidence is up, so we're okay.

Just a guess here, but do think that maybe the 2000-2001 recession + 9/11 had anything to do with the current deficit? If you honestly think a dem in the white house would be running a surplus right now, you'd only be fooling yourself.

 

[BTox]

The fact is, governments do and can run up large debts, and do so reasonably. The fact that Dubya just did without blinking an eye just indicates the lie of the horror of how bad government debt is intrinsically.

The lie of the horror?? That appears to be a double negative.

Of course governments have to manage debt, like all of us do, but the fixation on condemming any debt, in any colourful terms that come to mind, is just a result of trying to remove attention from the intention of undermining a democratic government that has a useful (regulated) role in people's lives.

Conspiracy theory alert!

The amazing thing about Dubya's deficit is that it is being blown on about the most wasteful of all spending targets, the military.

Yes, defense of the nation during war is such a waste.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!

Just a guess here, but do think that maybe the 2000-2001 recession + 9/11 had anything to do with the current deficit? If you honestly think a dem in the white house would be running a surplus right now, you'd only be fooling yourself.

Only, the consistent message to the public from conservatives is that deficits make recessions worse, and if Democrats try the liberal Keynsian solution of spending your way out of a deficit, then they are sending America to Hell in a Handbasket.

 

[a_unique_person]

The lie of the horror?? That appears to be a double negative.

I was going for the language award.

The consistent story from the conservatives is that Deficits are a liberal 'evil'. Yet, when it suits, the conservatives will run one up without blinking. The deficit under the Reagan 'wonder years' was larger when he left than when he started.

Conspiracy theory alert!



Yes, defense of the nation during war is such a waste.

So tell me, which terrorists are about to rain ICBMs on the US so that it needs a new generation missile defense system? How much more secure is the US now that it has taken out a dictator who was no threat to it.

 

[Tricky]

It's not an issue because not a single candidate has offered a plan to reduce it. Even the Dems who want to raise taxes have new spending programs far exceeding the tax increases they want.

Rolling back the tax cuts would do a lot towards reducing the deficit. I'm not aware of the "spending plans" the Democrats have that would erase that. Funny that Bush's first budget actually counted on surplusses continuing, yet he immediately put plans in place that would eliminate those surplusses (meaning the tax cuts.) It was voodoo economics at its worst. (His daddy would be so proud of him.)

Then came the war. Even when it became obvious that very few other countries would support us either politically or economically in this war, he did it anyway. Perhaps he was planning to make up the money by stealing their oil, but so far all we've seen is tremendous outlays not only for military, but for "rebuilding". Yeah, Halliburton is doing great, but at the expense of taxpayers.

Now I have a lot of disagreement with how Clinton reduced the govenment. I thought some of his cutbacks were unnecessarily cruel and poorly thought out. Plus, he also pandered to the rich. The gap between highest and lowest paid people grew more under Clinton than in any other time in US history. Believe me, I'm not a Clinton lover. But he had a better knack for seeing the bottom line than any president in years, possibly in history. I don't personally believe that the bottom line is always the most important thing, but it is important. What I see from Bush is no regard for the bottom line, and no clue as to how to manage the budget. He's throwing away the country's future in order to reward his rich croneys.

We're still paying for the Reagan years, principally the S&L bailouts. It seems we will also be paying for the Bush years for some time to come. If the country survives them.

 

[Grammatron]

I was going for the language award.

The consistent story from the conservatives is that Deficits are a liberal 'evil'. Yet, when it suits, the conservatives will run one up without blinking. The deficit under the Reagan 'wonder years' was larger when he left than when he started.



So tell me, which terrorists are about to rain ICBMs on the US so that it needs a new generation missile defense system? How much more secure is the US now that it has taken out a dictator who was no threat to it.

North Korea?

 

[Grammatron]

Rolling back the tax cuts would do a lot towards reducing the deficit. I'm not aware of the "spending plans" the Democrats have that would erase that. Funny that Bush's first budget actually counted on surplusses continuing, yet he immediately put plans in place that would eliminate those surplusses (meaning the tax cuts.) It was voodoo economics at its worst. (His daddy would be so proud of him.)

Then came the war. Even when it became obvious that very few other countries would support us either politically or economically in this war, he did it anyway. Perhaps he was planning to make up the money by stealing their oil, but so far all we've seen is tremendous outlays not only for military, but for "rebuilding". Yeah, Halliburton is doing great, but at the expense of taxpayers.

Now I have a lot of disagreement with how Clinton reduced the govenment. I thought some of his cutbacks were unnecessarily cruel and poorly thought out. Plus, he also pandered to the rich. The gap between highest and lowest paid people grew more under Clinton than in any other time in US history. Believe me, I'm not a Clinton lover. But he had a better knack for seeing the bottom line than any president in years, possibly in history. I don't personally believe that the bottom line is always the most important thing, but it is important. What I see from Bush is no regard for the bottom line, and no clue as to how to manage the budget. He's throwing away the country's future in order to reward his rich croneys.

We're still paying for the Reagan years, principally the S&L bailouts. It seems we will also be paying for the Bush years for some time to come. If the country survives them.

I don't know why you only blame Bush for this; he didn't exactly make an executive order to force the spending through. The legislature passed the spending spree and they are as much if not more responsible for it. As for Democrats, they said 400billion dollars on Medicare wasn't enough. Let’s face it, Rep/Dem they both want pork and don't care how things get paid for. I don't see anyway out of this other than smaller government.

 

[a_unique_person]

North Korea?

Raining? If they ever try to fire one, it is more likely to end up crashing on themselves. The only purpose it serves is to frighten people. Kim is too comfortably ensconsed in his paradise to end it all with an attack on the US.

 

[Grammatron]

Raining? If they ever try to fire one, it is more likely to end up crashing on themselves. The only purpose it serves is to frighten people. Kim is too comfortably ensconsed in his paradise to end it all with an attack on the US.

Most likely, but you asked which terrorist would. He can as can Iran. Of course it would be the most suicidal move in the history of Earth. However, something tells me stability is not one of their traits.