• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

spin this ecomike

That should say.. President Bush's accumulated debt - 7.4 trillion. Which was 8 years in the making. When he got into office, we had a surplus, not a debt.

President Obama's are nothing but projections. And last I heard, it was projected to be over a longer period of time than the next 8 years.
 
That should say.. President Bush's accumulated debt - 7.4 trillion. Which was 8 years in the making. When he got into office, we had a surplus, not a debt.

President Obama's are nothing but projections. And last I heard, it was projected to be over a longer period of time than the next 8 years.

i still dont see how that is better
 
For our first 60
years as a Nation (through 1849), cumulative
budget surpluses and deficits yielded a net
surplus of $70 million.
The Civil War, along
with the Spanish-American War and the
depression of the 1890s, resulted in a cumulative
deficit totaling just under $1 billion
during the 1850–1900 period


1850 mybad :D
 
bush v obama annual deficits, according to the congressional budget office

wapoobamabudget1.jpg
 
What upsets me more than the actual debt is what it represents. The government sells bonds to finance the debt, the interest on those bonds is paid by selling more bonds (pyramid scheme). by borrowing and by printing more money, with taxes coming in a poor fourth.
Government Bonds, are usually worth more in the country of issue. So in effect the government is selling off pieces of America to finance the debt.
More bonds, if the bond holders loose confidence or use the bonds as political leverage. It could rock the whole structure.
Borrowing, the government borrows from the same pool as everybody else, supply and demand. Only so much money to go around.
The more you print the less the value, with the side effect of devaluing existing bonds. Print too much money and your bonds become much less attractive.
Taxes and fees, are a larger part of your earnings than you think. Besides working a quarter of the year just to pay your share, you are taxed multiple times on the same money. Sooner or later it just doesn't pay to work anymore.
I'm sure Mike can explain it better than I can and likely has a better grasp of the larger picture.
Where are we and how did we get here?
It's typical for the Democrats to try and get money flowing in new directions, Typically they add more government, because in general most government emplyees vote Democrat. They also cultivate the near rich, pass out favors (money) which can have some benefits, but can also weaken the foundations of the system. Democrats have a tendency to throw money at a problem.
On the flip side, Bush trying to secure an oil source, while actually necessary in the short term (it is a strategic resource), was from the beginning a stop gap and not a solution. If the Democrats and the media would have butted out, it would likely have been resolved in half the time, with half the unnecessary deaths and at half the cost. Whatever the fine points, it just about broke America. It also rocked most Americans confidence in the truthfulness of their government. I'd give the Republicans an "F" in media manipulation and plausible misdirection. I'd give them a "B" in getting the attention of our enemies.

2w2lhyb.png



One of the predictable results of the Democrats vowing to tax the rich, was capital flight to safe havens. The bacon often ends up stashed in a tax haven. They convinced Switzerland to open thier books (for about 10% of their largest depositors) and then set a due date of 23 September (so they have plenty of time to rehide it), wanna bet there is a rash of wire transfers and/or alot of digging going on? LOL I'm sure there is a plethora of fine points to the problem, but the obvious consequences are "Well? obvious" and really makes me wonder at the competence of our elected officials.
I have like zero confidence in the Bimbo running the Senate (Speaker of the House). She seems to swing from perplexed to dumbfounded and then back again. Maybe she has more going on than appears to the casual observer, but she seems like to type to answer the front door and ask, "did you ring the bell?"
 
Last edited:
What upsets me more than the actual debt is what it represents. The government sells bonds to finance the debt, the interest on those bonds is paid by selling more bonds (pyramid scheme). by borrowing and by printing more money, with taxes coming in a poor fourth.
This is true however the future cost of present debt is expected to be offset by multiple factors, namely a combination of economic growth and inflation. If you have annual growth of 3% and inflation of 1% then deficits of 4% are essentially a wash. Even long-term debt can be a multiple of GDP and be manageable if the payments are less than growth plus inflation (this is the same reason you can buy a house and pay for college education and more stuff that is all 10-20x annual income, and get away with it).

However what we have now is negative growth and MASSIVE UNPRECEDENTED borrowing... The future cost is already more expensive than we can repay.

My guess is that Obama wants us to become another western-european socialistic state, with the expectation that he will eventually have to pay for it the same way--neuter the military.
 
Something people tend to forget, is inflation works much like compound interest. While say, 5% inflation, doesn't sound like a lot, 50% in ten years. The fact is, it is (compounded) and in fact closer to 200% in ten years, in many sectors. There seems to be a large discrepancy between the published yearly inflation numbers and the actual ten year averages.
 
That should say.. President Bush's accumulated debt - 7.4 trillion. Which was 8 years in the making. When he got into office, we had a surplus, not a debt.

President Obama's are nothing but projections. And last I heard, it was projected to be over a longer period of time than the next 8 years.


It's painfully obvious that you don't know the difference between an annual budget and our total debt. You're free to not talk for the rest of this thread.
 
However what we have now is negative growth and MASSIVE UNPRECEDENTED borrowing... The future cost is already more expensive than we can repay.

I don't expect the negative growth to survive this year. Europe, Japan and China already have positive GDPs as of the second quarter close, June, 2009, all just announced the last 10 days or so.

IIRC FDR (US Gov) during WWII spent more (and thus borrowed more) during WWII than the entire US GDP during WWII, and most of it was borrowed (deficit) We are no where near that level today (we are at about 10-20%, somewhere in that range as I recall, federal budget versus GDP).

In fact IIRC Reagan's budget deficits were far higher as a percentage of GDP than this years (which by the way is, was, a GW Bush budget set last year) in his first 4 years. Also, If I recall correctly, LBJs last 4 years included a huge budget that was a higher percentage of GDP than the current one (more taxes, and more deficits paid for it). But we also had higher taxes back then. When Reagan took office the personal income tax on personal income above $1 million per year was in the 90% tax bracket. Back then people, owners, reinvested their company profits back in the business they owned (tax deductible expenses for expansion of the business, buying new inventory, machinery, building more retail stores, .....investing), to avoid the 90% tax rate for pulling cash out of the business. Now we watch corporate raiders buy up a good company, suck out all the cash (as the tax rates are low), borrow money from banks to replace the working capital cash they sucked out (and pay off the banks with fees for their collusion) then Wall Street floats the debt to unsuspecting investors, the company hits a slow period, and the company goes belly up due to excess debt, and the employees that helped build the company get the boot.

We survived FDRs deficits, LBJs deficits, Reagans deficits, and so far GW Bushes deficits. I have no doubt we will survive Obama's deficits too.

The Chinese and Japan, have way too much invested in the US dollar to let it collapse. If anything, the US dollar is still too high and needs to drop some to stimulate export demand.
 
I don't expect the negative growth to survive this year. Europe, Japan and China already have positive GDPs as of the second quarter close, June, 2009, all just announced the last 10 days or so.
Yes the countries that did not engage in massive government spending and instead focused on encouraging organic economic activity have already had positive quarters while we have shrunk another 1% even after distributing $800 million to favored interest groups of the presidency. I also see more talk of a double-dip than I used to

IIRC FDR (US Gov) during WWII spent more (and thus borrowed more) during WWII than the entire US GDP during WWII, and most of it was borrowed (deficit) We are no where near that level today (we are at about 10-20%, somewhere in that range as I recall, federal budget versus GDP).
Actually it is expected to be equal to WWII debt levels, and that is under the optimistic projections that gave us the "stimulus" spending. Here are the historical and projected debt figures as percent of GDP culled from the white house' own spreadsheets (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist07z1.xls)

Code:
1944		97.6
1945		117.5
1946		121.7
1947		110.3
1948		98.2
1949		93.1
1950		94.0

Code:
2009 estimate	90.4
2010 estimate	98.1
2011 estimate	101.1
2012 estimate	100.6
2013 estimate	99.7
2014 estimate	99.8

If it is much worse than expected (like, I dunno, maybe $2 trillion worse?) then it will be on the path to exceed WWII debt levels
 
Debt as a percentage of GDP is not the number I was referring too as being significant, and it is not the one we should be as concerned about. It is the part, or percent of GDP that total annual government spending takes up that can cause huge problems, like inflation.

If most people had total personal debt that was equal to or less than than their personal GDP, in other words if their total debt was equal to or less than there annual income we would be in great financial shape today. Most people have far more debt on that basis than the US government based on the numbers you posted. In fact that tells me if the US taxed, collected, and spent the entire years GDP on paying Debt, the government would be debt free in just one year.

The real problem comes in when and if the government continues to spend and consume too much of the GDP when the GDP is growing at a say 3-4% annual rate (like GWB did to fund two wars). Then private interests start competing with the government for limited money supplies and limited GDP, and limited oil supplies, which causes people to demand higher wages and pushes product prices higher as demand exceeds supply (like oil did in recent years).

Also during the Reagan era we were paying 20% interest on the national debt, the interest payments then were something like 20% of the US budget, which at the time exceeded the defense budget at times of peak interest rates . We are paying something like 0.25% interest on 3 month Treasury debt right now.

As you know the government never really pays off the debt most of the time, but it does always pay interest on the debt.

Oh, and the countries I spoke of, Japan, Europe, China that had recent positive GDPs, spent massive amounts of stimulus money on bank bail outs, and cheap business credit, just like we did. As a percent of GDP China and Japan spent far more on stimulus than we did the last 12 months. Europe probably did as well. I know Europe pushed the limits of their government funding abilities just to bail out their banks!

Not sure where you got this: "while we have shrunk another 1% even after distributing $800 million". I think you meant billion, not million(?), small matter of a few zeros there, but they add up to zero, so LOL. The 800 billion has not all been spent, it feeds into the economy over a 24 month period, not all at once, which started back around march this year. You forget to mention than the GDP drop rate went from about 6% drop (-6%) to barely a 1% drop (-1%) the last quarter to quarter reports. Our next quarter could be positive, at that rate of change in direction, 6-1= +5% change in the positive direction in one quarter. Has to do with passing through the inflection point in the growth (decay) curve, which is behind us now.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Billy, I've achieved my daily goal of learning something new every day......great read, btw.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top