Go Skins Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-wants-borrow-24-trillion-roughly-what-we-borrowed-during-wwii_577147.html President Obama repeatedly insists that the debt ceiling must be raised by at least $2.4 trillion. Why this particular amount, rather than, say, an even $1 trillion or $2 trillion? Because $2.4 trillion is Obama’s estimate for what it would take to get him through the next election without needing to deal with another debt ceiling battle. In other words, $2.4 trillion is a politically generated figure. It’s hard to conceptualize sums as vast as $2,400,000,000,000.00 in newly borrowed money, new deficit spending, and new debt. How much, really, is it? Well, even after adjusting for inflation, it’s about the same amount of money that we borrowed to fight World War II. According to the White House Historical Tables, at the end of 1941, our debt — in 2011 dollars — was $0.8 trillion. By the end of 1945, it was $3.3 trillion, a difference of $2.5 trillion. (If you start the clock at the end of 1940, our debt increased by $2.6 trillion by the end of 1945, but that includes 15 months — 11 before Pearl Harbor and 4 after V-J Day — when we weren’t at war.) In other words, in inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama wants to borrow and spend about the same amount of money to get from August 2, 2011 through November 6, 2012 as we borrowed and spent to fight the Axis powers on two fronts from December 7, 1941 to August 15, 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 We are overdrawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Montana Bengal| Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Can somebody translate these numbers to Coca-Cola figures (then versus now)? 1/2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1311347656' post='1002452'] We are overdrawn. [/quote] No shit... ain't that the truth. Hell, we've been overdrawn for years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Why is it so hard for them to stay in budget? Aren't the IRS revenues like zillions of dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1311616442' post='1003099'] Why is it so hard for them to stay in budget? Aren't the IRS revenues like zillions of dollars? [/quote] Because they're politicians! No matter how much money you send, they're always going to spend up to it and more... They'll never have enough. Just the nature of a politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 We dont have a spending problem we have a revenue problem. We lost a large percentage of the taxable workforce, because of gambling on Wall St., and with it their revenue and yet both parties are failing to address the jobs problem to get that revenue back, rather they would cut programs that are designed to help folks when times are tough. It's immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 http://robertreich.org/ [quote]Vicious Cycles: Why Washington is About to Make the Jobs Crisis Worse MONDAY, JULY 25, 2011 We now live in parallel universes. One universe is the one in which most Americans live. In it, almost 15 million people are unemployed, wages are declining (adjusted for inflation), and home values are still falling. The unsurprising result is consumers aren’t buying — which is causing employers to slow down their hiring and in many cases lay off more of their workers. In this universe, we’re locked in a vicious economic cycle that’s getting worse. The other universe is the one in which Washington politicians live. They are now engaged in a bitter partisan battle over how, and by how much, to reduce the federal budget deficit in order to buy enough votes to lift the debt ceiling. The two universes have nothing whatever to do with one another — except for one thing. If consumers can’t and won’t buy, and employers won’t hire without customers, the spender of last resort must be government. We’ve understood this since government spending on World War II catapulted America out of the Great Depression — reversing the most vicious of vicious cycles. We’ve understood it in every economic downturn since then. Until now. The only way out of the vicious economic cycle is for government to adopt an expansionary fiscal policy — spending more in the short term in order to make up for the shortfall in consumer demand. This would create jobs, which will put money in peoples’ pockets, which they’d then spend, thereby persuading employers to do more hiring. The consequential job growth will also help reduce the long-term ratio of debt to GDP. It’s a win-win. This is not rocket science. And it’s not difficult for government to do this — through a new WPA or Civilian Conservation Corps, an infrastructure bank, tax incentives for employers to hire, a two-year payroll tax holiday on the first $20K of income, and partial unemployment benefits for those who have lost part-time jobs. Yet the parallel universe called Washington is moving in exactly the opposite direction. Republicans are proposing to cut the budget deficit this year and next, which will result in more job losses. And Democrats, from the President on down, seem unable or unwilling to present a bold jobs plan to reverse the vicious cycle of unemployment. Instead, they’re busily playing “I can cut the deficit more than you” — trying to hold their Democratic base by calling for $1 of tax increases (mostly on the wealthy) for every $3 of spending cuts. All of this is making the vicious economic cycle worse — and creating a vicious political cycle to accompany it. As more and more Americans lose faith that their government can do anything to bring back jobs and wages, they are becoming more susceptible to the Republican’s oft-repeated lie that the problem is government — that if we shrink government, jobs will return, wages will rise, and it will be morning in America again. And as Democrats, from the President on down, refuse to talk about jobs and wages, but instead play the deficit-reduction game, they give even more legitimacy to this lie and more momentum to this vicious political cycle. The parallel universes are about to crash, and average Americans will be all the worse for it. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1311620866' post='1003149'] We dont have a spending problem we have a revenue problem. We lost a large percentage of the taxable workforce, because of gambling on Wall St., and with it their revenue and yet both parties are failing to address the jobs problem to get that revenue back, rather they would cut programs that are designed to help folks when times are tough. It's immoral. [/quote] I agree that cutting back on some social programs in the exact times when those programs are most needed isn't right and only makes matters worse. We'll agree to disagree on one major issue though... to say the government doesn't have a spending problem is laughable. When was the last time our government wasn't carrying debt? If we're hauling debt around then we've got a spending problem. Surpluses are great, deficits suck, but when the deficits are bigger (or more frequent) than the surpluses then you have a spending problem. If you know you have X dollars to work with for a fiscal year, then you spend to that figure. It is budgeting 101 - our government doesn't understand budgeting, we just go borrow more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1311623308' post='1003184'] I agree that cutting back on some social programs in the exact times when those programs are most needed isn't right and only makes matters worse. We'll agree to disagree on one major issue though... to say the government doesn't have a spending problem is laughable. When was the last time our government wasn't carrying debt? If we're hauling debt around then we've got a spending problem. Surpluses are great, deficits suck, but when the deficits are bigger (or more frequent) than the surpluses then you have a spending problem. If you know you have X dollars to work with for a fiscal year, then you spend to that figure. It is budgeting 101 - our government doesn't understand budgeting, we just go borrow more money. [/quote] Time and time again I hear or read as the case may be folks such as yourself postulate (often correctly) that the government needs to stop spending so much goddamn money, and yet I never hear anyone mention the single largest source of discretionary spending and make a call for drastic cuts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1311623924' post='1003190'] Time and time again I hear or read as the case may be folks such as yourself postulate (often correctly) that the government needs to stop spending so much goddamn money, and yet I never hear anyone mention the single largest source of discretionary spending and make a call for drastic cuts... [/quote] Yeah I hate NASA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Borrow 2.4 trillion and give it to JJoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1311626003' post='1003219'] Yeah I hate NASA [/quote] Only because they sold slaves to George Washington... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1311623308' post='1003184'] I agree that cutting back on some social programs in the exact times when those programs are most needed isn't right and only makes matters worse. We'll agree to disagree on one major issue though... to say the government doesn't have a spending problem is laughable. When was the last time our government wasn't carrying debt? If we're hauling debt around then we've got a spending problem. Surpluses are great, deficits suck, but when the deficits are bigger (or more frequent) than the surpluses then you have a spending problem. If you know you have X dollars to work with for a fiscal year, then you spend to that figure. It is budgeting 101 - our government doesn't understand budgeting, we just go borrow more money. [/quote] No it isn't laughable. Look at the GDP formula, government spending when the other areas of the GDP formula is down is required to fix the demand problem so that jobs can get created and thus bring back the revenue. Not all deficit spending is bad, the problem is twofold 1. what we spend it on to create these jobs 2. when the jobs return and times are good THEN cuts should be made and the deficit spending paid back. But we don't do that when times are good people demand tax cuts rather than paying back our previous deficits. Some debit is ok, you do have to pay it back, but pay it back at the proper time. I always use this example. When a high school graduate plans for his future most go into debit with student loans so that they can have a good job that can then pay back those loans rather than do the pay as you go and end up graduating years later. Now what we do is get the degree and then go spending our new found money on big screen tvs rather than paying back the student loans first. That isnt responsible either and thats what we almost always seem to do. This is Keynesian Economics 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Getting our military the fuck out of the MIddle East would be a start...and it would calm down the anti-American activities and rhetoric some to boot. I am also in favor of reducing military spending overall....its overkill at this point, especially on things like manned warplanes. If anything we should be pouring money into unmanned technology more and more until we perfect it. That right there would save a[u] fortune.[/u] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1311627955' post='1003236'] Getting our military the fuck out of the MIddle East would be a start...and it would calm down the anti-American activities and rhetoric some to boot. I am also in favor of reducing military spending overall....its overkill at this point, especially on things like manned warplanes. If anything we should be pouring money into unmanned technology more and more until we perfect it. That right there would save a[u] fortune.[/u] [/quote] The cold war is over, we need to look at how to have a more agile military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1311627955' post='1003236'] Getting our military the fuck out of the MIddle East would be a start...and it would calm down the anti-American activities and rhetoric some to boot. I am also in favor of reducing military spending overall....its overkill at this point, especially on things like manned warplanes. [b]If anything we should be pouring money into unmanned technology more and more until we perfect it.[/b] That right there would save a[u] fortune.[/u] [/quote] DING DING DING! Well, except for the bold part; bombing the fuck out of anything that moves via drones isn't exactly endearing us to folks who aren't our enemies (yet). That and it's pretty damned cowardly...[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1311628141' post='1003239'] The cold war is over, we need to look at how to have a more agile military. [/quote] We need to use the military to protect our borders and native soil, something we haven't done since 1945... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 I would like to post up troops in front of Home Depot to deport all of the dirty Mexicans (and Canadians). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 From [url="http://news.yahoo.com/u-trucking-funds-end-taliban-hands-223542993.html"]this article[/url]. Aside from your tax dollars ending up in the hands of the Taliban: [quote]The United States is spending more than $6 billion a month in the conflict.[/quote] On top of the $6 [b]Trillion[/b] we've blown in both wars over the last decade. And yet this never comes up (neither here nor in Washington) as a way we might be able to stop the fiscal hemorrhaging. Un-fucking-believable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1311639547' post='1003331'] From [url="http://news.yahoo.com/u-trucking-funds-end-taliban-hands-223542993.html"]this article[/url]. Aside from your tax dollars ending up in the hands of the Taliban: On top of the $6 [b]Trillion[/b] we've blown in both wars over the last decade. And yet this never comes up (neither here nor in Washington) as a way we might be able to stop the fiscal hemorrhaging. Un-fucking-believable... [/quote] I feel like I've been hearing it recently, from all sides. We definitely have a spending problem, and its on nearly everything, not just the programs I complain about (welfare, medicaid etc- dont want to get into that argument now). It would be really great if they would stop rewarding other countries with trade agreements etc that have shuttered our industry to microscopic levels in comparison to the previous 200 years. Companies cant compete with Chinese made (for example) products, and in turn have to ship their jobs overseas just to stay solvent. There is a bunch of American jobs lost right there, a bunch of taxes lost, and some people will end up dependent on the system. Get our industry back and cut back on imports until we are at least equalized on imports/exports... or better. Oh, and legalize marijuana for fucks sake and tax the hell out of it. Dumbest, most wasteful policy out there. Well, one of them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1311652868' post='1003465'] I feel like I've been hearing it recently, from all sides. We definitely have a spending problem, and its on nearly everything, not just the programs I complain about (welfare, medicaid etc- dont want to get into that argument now). It would be really great if they would stop rewarding other countries with trade agreements etc that have shuttered our industry to microscopic levels in comparison to the previous 200 years. Companies cant compete with Chinese made (for example) products, and in turn have to ship their jobs overseas just to stay solvent. There is a bunch of American jobs lost right there, a bunch of taxes lost, and some people will end up dependent on the system. Get our industry back and cut back on imports until we are at least equalized on imports/exports... or better. Oh, and legalize marijuana for fucks sake and tax the hell out of it. Dumbest, most wasteful policy out there. Well, one of them anyway. [/quote] I don't disagree with you. Really. Sadly, to some people on this board and elsewhere if you "Stop rewarding other countries with trade agreements" you are making business more expensive for companies here, so no wonder they have to ship their shit overseas because it's "SO DAMN EXPENSIVE" {insert huge eye roll here}. Our economy sucks because no one is hiring, and no one is hiring because no one is buying their product, and no one can buy their product because they either don't have a job or the job they have now only pays $8 and hour instead of $50,000 per year, which in turn leads to grossly diminished tax revenues on the state and federal level, which leads the plutocrats in Washington to bleat in unison that we're "Strangling business with our demand for taxes" even though the folks that bankroll their campaigns and pay for their votes just got a bonus of $56 billion and didn't pay any income tax. We've created quite the perpetual motion machine of misery here, haven't we? And oh yeah, legalize pot. If for no other reason than to piss off the right-wing fundies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1311623924' post='1003190'] Time and time again I hear or read as the case may be folks such as yourself postulate (often correctly) that the government needs to stop spending so much goddamn money, and yet I never hear anyone mention the single largest source of discretionary spending and make a call for drastic cuts... [/quote] Elf - don't misunderstand... I'm opposed to nothing. I say, bring everyone home. Start protecting our shit and stop "building governments" abroad. Stop sending money to foreign countries annually for no particular reason than "just because". Get those changes made to satisfy those that are fighting against the domestic changes. Then proceed to work domestically... I see in here someone says that our military needs to get more agile and leaner. I agree. So does our government. [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1311627918' post='1003235'] No it isn't laughable. Look at the GDP formula, government spending when the other areas of the GDP formula is down is required to fix the demand problem so that jobs can get created and thus bring back the revenue. Not all deficit spending is bad, the problem is twofold 1. what we spend it on to create these jobs 2. when the jobs return and times are good THEN cuts should be made and the deficit spending paid back. But we don't do that when times are good people demand tax cuts rather than paying back our previous deficits. Some debit is ok, you do have to pay it back, but pay it back at the proper time. I always use this example. When a high school graduate plans for his future most go into debit with student loans so that they can have a good job that can then pay back those loans rather than do the pay as you go and end up graduating years later. Now what we do is get the degree and then go spending our new found money on big screen tvs rather than paying back the student loans first. That isnt responsible either and thats what we almost always seem to do. This is Keynesian Economics 101. [/quote] I agree with the premise that, at times, some debt is alright... but our country isn't a high school graduate anymore. It is more like the 65 year old just retired, realizing he is on a fixed income now at (for arguments sake $2500 a month) yet he continues borrowing such that his monthly bills are $3000 - $3500 a month. The math doesn't work. So, I'll ask again, at what point, have we ever been EVEN CLOSE to paying our debt down to $0.00? EVEN CLOSE to it? We'll go a 3-4, maybe 5 year span were we'll cut military spending WAY back (think Clinton) and run a surplus (allowing for debt reduction) then we'll go a 6-8 year span of deficits (often times, higher than what the surpluses paid back)... yes, reduce military spending, but why don't we reduce domestic programs along with it? That just doesn't seem to EVER happen. [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1311628313' post='1003241'] DING DING DING! Well, except for the bold part; bombing the fuck out of anything that moves via drones isn't exactly endearing us to folks who aren't our enemies (yet). That and it's pretty damned cowardly... We need to use the military to protect our borders and native soil, something we haven't done since 1945... [/quote] I'll agree with the bringing the military home, reduce our debt load (in military as well as domestic programs), and fix ourselves first. Would go a long way to resolving A LOT of other problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote]Economic recovery will improve the deficit situation in the short run because revenues will rise as people go back to work, and money spent on the social safety net will decline as fewer people are forced to rely on it. But even after the economy recovers, federal spending is projected to increase faster than revenues, so the government will have to continue borrowing money to spend. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects if we continue on our current course, deficits will remain high throughout the rest of this decade and beyond, and debt will spiral ever higher, reaching 90 percent of GDP in 2020.[/quote] This is out of the 66 page Fiscal Commission's Simpson Bowles Report from December 2010... if you've not seen or read any of it - good read [url="http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf"]here[/url]. Funny how you've heard screaming about the cut, cap, and balance... yet this report, which is created by a government agency for the White House says essentially cut and cap. The only thing they don't address is a mechanism forcing a balanced budget in an constitutional amendment. What is the MOST HILARIOUS part (if there is any in all of this) is that Obama CREATED this commission... for what? If he's not going to heed ANY of their suggestions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1311680936' post='1003513'] I agree with the premise that, at times, some debt is alright... but our country isn't a high school graduate anymore. It is more like the 65 year old just retired, realizing he is on a fixed income now at (for arguments sake $2500 a month) yet he continues borrowing such that his monthly bills are $3000 - $3500 a month. The math doesn't work. So, I'll ask again, at what point, have we ever been EVEN CLOSE to paying our debt down to $0.00? EVEN CLOSE to it? We'll go a 3-4, maybe 5 year span were we'll cut military spending WAY back (think Clinton) and run a surplus (allowing for debt reduction) then we'll go a 6-8 year span of deficits (often times, higher than what the surpluses paid back)... yes, reduce military spending, but why don't we reduce domestic programs along with it? That just doesn't seem to EVER happen. [/quote] Actually that math is what got us out of the great depression and as it so happens we are in a extremely similar bind caused by extremely similar problems that the depression was caused by so when I say we should follow FDR's guideline it isn't without any thought. But I digress. Andrew Jackson payed the debit in full and it caused us serious problems as well because no debit at all made us a banana republic that countries didn't want to trade with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Robert Reich was on fire last night... [quote]Calling it a "debt crisis" is dangerously misleading. It's a "growth crisis." If we grow faster, the debt/GDP ratio declines faster. Without sufficient public investment in infrastructure, education, & basic R&D we can't attract global capital to US to create good jobs. O continues to play on the R field, legitimizing the big R lie that if we get govt debt "under control" we'll get jobs back. Pure baloney. The nation's debt is not the central problem. It's too few jobs, declining median wages, and a growing % of income & wealth at the top. R's are winning the big one -- framing Am's core problem as big government rather than the shrinking middle class & growing plutocracy.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.