Deficit

[hcap]

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm#ixzz2CnfRPwjF

U.S. Deficit Shrinking At Fastest Pace Since WWII, Before Fiscal Cliff

http://www.investors.com/image/WEBcaphill01_1120_345.gif.cms

[Capper Al]

Another deficit fact: Going back 350 years into our democracy, from our English heritage thru modern day America, only 6 leaders (Presidents/Prime ministers) have had a surplus. All were liberals.

[sammy the sage]

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm#ixzz2CnfRPwjF

U.S. Deficit Shrinking At Fastest Pace Since WWII, Before Fiscal Cliff

http://www.investors.com/image/WEBcaphill01_1120_345.gif.cms

All semantics and total BS...O's still running a DEFICIT...and TOTAL debt has INCREASED...period...

I can provide 50 charts w/facts...I'l just do ONE...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

just google if you want more...

As w/discussion during the Bush years...liars figure and figures lie...and can be twisted anyways you want....

Again...the over-all deficit HAS increased...

[Capper Al]

All semantics and total BS...O's still running a DEFICIT...and TOTAL debt has INCREASED...period...

I can provide 50 charts w/facts...I'l just do ONE...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

just google if you want more...

As w/discussion during the Bush years...liars figure and figures lie...and can be twisted anyways you want....

Again...the over-all deficit HAS increased...

According to your chart:

Obama FY 2013*: $901 billion -- Bush FY 2009†: $1,413 billion

[sammy the sage]

According to your chart:

Obama FY 2013*: $901 billion -- Bush FY 2009†: $1,413 billion

yeah...so...proves my point EXACTLY....still minus....and TOTAL has grown...

You missed the point about Bush...back in late 2007 I was trying to explain that we were headed towards///and//or// in a recession...many here thought I was simpleton then...some still think that...oh welll ;)

In other words...both right and left SPEW DECEITFUL #'s/twist when-ever it suits them...

[Capper Al]

yeah...so...proves my point EXACTLY....still minus....and TOTAL has grown...

You missed the point about Bush...back in late 2007 I was trying to explain that we were headed towards///and//or// in a recession...many here thought I was simpleton then...some still think that...oh welll ;)

In other words...both right and left SPEW DECEITFUL #'s/twist when-ever it suits them...

I don't disagree with your assertions that facts are manipulated. The bigger question is why is it so important that these world wide deficits get paid instead of canceled out to each other? Do we own the money to the Martians?

[Tom]

Who but hcap - well, and mostie - could possible defend a 16 trillion hole that their own side says will grow to over 20 in the next 4 years?
:lol::lol::lol:

Even Baghdad Bob say WTF?

[Valuist]

We are headed for a major currency crisis. Money printing has never worked out; Japan, Brazil, Zimbabwe and pre-Hitler Germany. Inflation will be here. Better be prepared for it.

If the government had done nothing, no stimulus or QE back in 2009, the first year or so probably would've been worse. But by now, the economy would be much healthier. Now we now a crisis is coming but its still guesswork whether it hits in 6 months, 2 years, or 4-5 years.

[ArlJim78]

shoddy work, if you look at the data file that their chart is supposedly based on there appears to be some disparities that make it look better than it is.

but the bigger issue is the choice of data presentation, three year change in debt relative to gdp and the sensational headline. IBD is obviously pushing an outcome here.

the fact is the last three years have had the largest dept/gdp percentages by far over the past 20 years. this years number is roughly 5% highly than the mean over that time frame. the three year number only looks good within the context of the outrageously large spike produced at the beggining of Obama-Pelosi-Reid management cycle.

go to the table 1-3 and see for yourself. tell me if you see any great improvement that should be celebrated.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

the truth is buried in the IBD opinion "deficits remain very large by historical standards"

[HUSKER55]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/budget-create-deficits-6004.jpg (http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/budget-create-deficits-6004.jpg)

Over the past 50 years, 10 U.S. presidents have made annual budget requests to Congress, projecting deficits both big and small. But no other president compares to Barack Obama (http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/budget-create-deficits) when it comes to the size and scale of the current budget deficit facing the United States.

[Tom]

Nero.....the mentor of hcap and Barry. :lol:

[Capper Al]

It's too bad the average voter doesn't comprehend economics. Undersrtanding the deficit becomes more understanding the family budget to most. It's akind to a view that world is flat.

[PaceAdvantage]

You missed the point about Bush...back in late 2007 I was trying to explain that we were headed towards///and//or// in a recession...many here thought I was simpleton then...I'm thinking you exaggerate greatly...but I'm betting you hoped I'd reply to this, because I'm sure you consider me as someone who called you a simpleton (I did not) and who was yelling and screaming how everything was fine (I was not).

I did state that traditional indicators/signs of recession had not been triggered when compared to past recessions in the US. I never said recession wasn't going to happen, just that it wasn't here YET (based on traditional indicators). Just wanted to get that out for the record.

[DJofSD]

Listening to liberals talk about fiscal policy is like getting advice about morals from Mick Jagger.

[Greyfox]

It's too bad the average voter doesn't comprehend economics. Undersrtanding the deficit becomes more understanding the family budget to most. It's akind to a view that world is flat.

You appear not to have read Milton Friedman's enlightening text "The World is Flat."


"Friedman's title is inspired by the notion that technology has leveled the playing field making what was once considered "third-world long shots" real contenders in the global economy. No longer are geographic borders, time zones, etc. etc., an obstacle to competing in the world economy. And again, according to Friedman, technology is the leveling factor."

http://dtr0005.hubpages.com/hub/The-World-is-Flat-A-Brief-History-of-the-Twenty-first-Century

[Capper Al]

Listening to liberals talk about fiscal policy is like getting advice about morals from Mick Jagger.

The only stat is that six liberals in the last 350 made surpluses. How do you figure your horses?

[ArlJim78]

no liberal congress has made a surplus. all of Clintons surplus glory was due to Newt Ginrgrich and his contract with America. Congress for a short time there in the nineties acted somewhat responsibly, then it all slipped away. Republicans are guilty as hell for acting irresponsibly too, but to imply that liberals are the ones responsible for the few surpluses we've had is laughably preposterous.

liberals have ruled the roost for over six years now. where's the deficit control?
anyone? bueller?

[HUSKER55]

which 6 do you refer to and which prime minister ran the USA?

[Tom]

anyone? bueller?

:lol: Great!

[HUSKER55]

1776: The Birth of Public Debt

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/images/history_georgewashington.jpg
George Washington,
portrait by Gilbert Stuart
"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of the time more valuable."

George Washington, 1793, Message to the House of Representatives

The public debt of the United States can be traced back as far as the American Revolution. In 1776, a committee of ten founders took charge of what would become the Treasury, and they helped secure funding for the war through "loan certificates" (equivalent to bonds) with which they borrowed money for the fledgling government from France and the Netherlands. This committee morphed over the next decade into the Department of Finance. Robert Morris, a wealthy merchant and Congressman (nicknamed "The Financier"), was chosen to lead a new Department of Finance in 1782.

As the new Superintendent of Finance, Morris was the first committee member to order a reporting of the total government debt owed. This marked the beginning of annual Treasury reports to the President. On January 1, 1783, the public debt of the new United States totaled $43 million.

1783: Raising Taxes to Meet Operating Expenses

In 1783, Congress was given the power to raise taxes. This helped meet the normal operating expenses of the new national government. But in 1785, revenues were still inadequate. Alexander Hamilton rallied for the government to assume some debt and help meet its expenses. He pushed the framers of the new Constitution to establish measures to provide the assurance that the debt would be paid, and thus increase confidence in the growing government. Many of Hamilton's policies have remained a part of our government's operations ever since. On September 2, 1789, Congress established The Treasury Department, naming Alexander Hamilton, its chief architect, as "Secretary."

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/images/history_hamilton.jpg
Alexander Hamilton,
portrait by John Trumbull,
1792
1789: Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton (b. January 11, 1755 - d. July 12, 1804) was the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, a Founding Father, economist, political philosopher and confidant of George Washington. He was one of America's first Constitutional lawyers, and co-wrote "The Federalist Papers," a primary source for Constitutional interpretation. As Washington's Treasury Secretary, Hamilton was very influential in the policy decisions of the new government. An admirer of British political systems, Hamilton emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new U.S. Congress funded the national debt, assumed state debts, created a national bank, and established tariffs and taxes. "A national debt, if it is not excessive," Hamilton argued, "will be to us a national blessing."

1790: The Funding Act

Hamilton, estimating the total public debt at $77.1 million, called for the issuance of new federal bonds to cover the debt. By assuming the obligation to pay this debt, the government firmly established its good credit. By February 1792, interest-bearing government bonds were selling for $1.20-on-the-dollar. A shrewd investor, buying $100 in bonds in 1786 (at a market price of about $15) could have sold the replacement bonds issued by the new government for $121.50 in 1792, realizing a handsome profit. The system of debt management instituted by Hamilton worked well to consolidate the debt and permit the government to make interest payments as they came due (as well as to secure the faith and credit of the government in the new United States and abroad).

1791: The Bank

To consolidate the government's financial affairs, Hamilton proposed the formation of a national bank to supplement the activities of The Treasury. Despite the opposition of Jefferson and Madison, the First Bank of the United States opened in 1791 with a total capital of $10 million. Just ten years later, though, Jeffersonian Democrats, who didn't trust banks, overturned this progress. Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, was a chief critic of Hamilton's methods of debt management, and made it his priority to reduce public debt. This worked for a time, reducing the public debt to $45.2 million by 1811, but was derailed by Jefferson's "Louisiana Purchase."

[hcap]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/21/the-deficit-is-already-shrinking-in-one-chart/

“From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP,” reports Investors Business Daily, citing figures from the Congressional Budget Office. IBD notes that that larger-than-expected returns from bank bailouts, slowing growth in Medicare costs, the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the $900 billion in already enacted Budget Control Act cuts also helped curb the deficit:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/don-t-look-now-deficit-shrinking-142058448.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-05/business/chi-federal-deficit-shrinks-still-tops-1t-in-fiscal-2012-20121005_1_trillion-deficit-year-end-fiscal-cliff-cbo-estimate

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/21/deficit_is_shrinking_at_its_fastest_pace_since_wor ld_war_ii.html

I GUESS THESE GUYS ARE JUST PART OF THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA'S PLOT TRO MAKE OUR NEWLY RE-ELECTED PREZ LOOK GOOD.

[sammy the sage]

You know Hcap...mostie of THE time you post decent stuff...from an idealist point of view.

This latest tho...total GARBAGE...period.

The nat'l debt has INCREASED every F'g year since O's been in office...

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

There's NO decrease in THE total...just increase's...sure maybe it's slowed down...but still it's INCREASED...in TOTALITY.

Time for you to give it up...we ALL make mistakes...

[Tom]

We're in a hole!
Woo Hoo! It's NICE in the hole!
Come on in, the hole is fine! :lol:

[Capper Al]

no liberal congress has made a surplus. all of Clintons surplus glory was due to Newt Ginrgrich and his contract with America. Congress for a short time there in the nineties acted somewhat responsibly, then it all slipped away. Republicans are guilty as hell for acting irresponsibly too, but to imply that liberals are the ones responsible for the few surpluses we've had is laughably preposterous.

liberals have ruled the roost for over six years now. where's the deficit control?
anyone? bueller?

Do you forget the surplus that was handed to W? Do you think lowering taxes and fighting two wars would not cost us?

[Capper Al]

Thanks for the refresher. Both Hamilton and Jefferson were right. Hamilton's innovations were brilliant at the time. Jefferson has proven correct about trusting the banks. Every 20 to 30 years, a banking scheme of one sort or another bust us with the exception of the fifties after winning the war. There probably was so much wealth to be had in the fifties that the banks couldn't bleed us.


1776: The Birth of Public Debt

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/images/history_georgewashington.jpg
George Washington,
portrait by Gilbert Stuart
"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of the time more valuable."

George Washington, 1793, Message to the House of Representatives

The public debt of the United States can be traced back as far as the American Revolution. In 1776, a committee of ten founders took charge of what would become the Treasury, and they helped secure funding for the war through "loan certificates" (equivalent to bonds) with which they borrowed money for the fledgling government from France and the Netherlands. This committee morphed over the next decade into the Department of Finance. Robert Morris, a wealthy merchant and Congressman (nicknamed "The Financier"), was chosen to lead a new Department of Finance in 1782.

As the new Superintendent of Finance, Morris was the first committee member to order a reporting of the total government debt owed. This marked the beginning of annual Treasury reports to the President. On January 1, 1783, the public debt of the new United States totaled $43 million.

1783: Raising Taxes to Meet Operating Expenses

In 1783, Congress was given the power to raise taxes. This helped meet the normal operating expenses of the new national government. But in 1785, revenues were still inadequate. Alexander Hamilton rallied for the government to assume some debt and help meet its expenses. He pushed the framers of the new Constitution to establish measures to provide the assurance that the debt would be paid, and thus increase confidence in the growing government. Many of Hamilton's policies have remained a part of our government's operations ever since. On September 2, 1789, Congress established The Treasury Department, naming Alexander Hamilton, its chief architect, as "Secretary."

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/images/history_hamilton.jpg
Alexander Hamilton,
portrait by John Trumbull,
1792
1789: Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton (b. January 11, 1755 - d. July 12, 1804) was the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, a Founding Father, economist, political philosopher and confidant of George Washington. He was one of America's first Constitutional lawyers, and co-wrote "The Federalist Papers," a primary source for Constitutional interpretation. As Washington's Treasury Secretary, Hamilton was very influential in the policy decisions of the new government. An admirer of British political systems, Hamilton emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new U.S. Congress funded the national debt, assumed state debts, created a national bank, and established tariffs and taxes. "A national debt, if it is not excessive," Hamilton argued, "will be to us a national blessing."

1790: The Funding Act

Hamilton, estimating the total public debt at $77.1 million, called for the issuance of new federal bonds to cover the debt. By assuming the obligation to pay this debt, the government firmly established its good credit. By February 1792, interest-bearing government bonds were selling for $1.20-on-the-dollar. A shrewd investor, buying $100 in bonds in 1786 (at a market price of about $15) could have sold the replacement bonds issued by the new government for $121.50 in 1792, realizing a handsome profit. The system of debt management instituted by Hamilton worked well to consolidate the debt and permit the government to make interest payments as they came due (as well as to secure the faith and credit of the government in the new United States and abroad).

1791: The Bank

To consolidate the government's financial affairs, Hamilton proposed the formation of a national bank to supplement the activities of The Treasury. Despite the opposition of Jefferson and Madison, the First Bank of the United States opened in 1791 with a total capital of $10 million. Just ten years later, though, Jeffersonian Democrats, who didn't trust banks, overturned this progress. Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, was a chief critic of Hamilton's methods of debt management, and made it his priority to reduce public debt. This worked for a time, reducing the public debt to $45.2 million by 1811, but was derailed by Jefferson's "Louisiana Purchase."

[lamboguy]

all i ever hear is how bad a president Obama is going to be in his second term. when everyone seems to be in agreement of the future, the exact opposite usually happens.

my prediction's are that the unemployment rate will be at an all time low 4 years from now, there will be no deficit, the national debt will be around $20 trillion with a good chance to pay it down by the end of the decade, and the dow will be over 20,000. i like to think as an optimist!

[Tom]

Do you forget the surplus that was handed to W? Do you think lowering taxes and fighting two wars would not cost us?

What surplus?
How did he achieve this alleged surplus?

[Tom]

all i ever hear is how bad a president Obama is going to be in his second term. when everyone seems to be in agreement of the future, the exact opposite usually happens.

my prediction's are that the unemployment rate will be at an all time low 4 years from now, there will be no deficit, the national debt will be around $20 trillion with a good chance to pay it down by the end of the decade, and the dow will be over 20,000. i like to think as an optimist!

Hey man, pass the bong.:D

[lamboguy]

why not take a positive view? we are only here for a visit!

[Tom]

why not take a positive view?

Because I have heard him speak.
I am positive no good will come out of the socialist pig.
His track records is bearing out that opinion.

Happy T-day, lamobo.

[hcap]

You know Hcap...mostie of THE time you post decent stuff...from an idealist point of view.

This latest tho...total GARBAGE...period.

The nat'l debt has INCREASED every F'g year since O's been in office...

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

There's NO decrease in THE total...just increase's...sure maybe it's slowed down...but still it's INCREASED...in TOTALITY.

Time for you to give it up...we ALL make mistakes...The Deficit is the annual budget shortfall. The National Debt is the aggregate of many years.

Yes we have an enormous Debt, but here we are talking yearly Deficit

[sammy the sage]

The Deficit is the annual budget shortfall. The National Debt is the aggregate of many years.

Yes we have an enormous Debt, but here we are talking yearly Deficit

Do you even read or COMPREHEND what you post... :rolleyes:

Original OPENING statement...says deficit decreasing... :lol:

Really even on A YEARLY basis it STILL increased by 900 billion...it just increased less...big whoopie...

Save this thread and write a response WHEN the deficit ACTUALLY goes positive for 1 F'g month...then again for a WHOLE year...

By the way...you and I will BOTH be dead before it's EVER paid off :faint:

ps...unless they DESTROY the dollar...which is THE end game...

[hcap]

Do you even read or COMPREHEND what you post... :rolleyes:

Original OPENING statement...says deficit decreasing... :lol:

Really even on A YEARLY basis it STILL increased by 900 billion...it just increased less...big whoopie...

Save this thread and write a response WHEN the deficit ACTUALLY goes positive for 1 F'g month...then again for a WHOLE year...

By the way...you and I will BOTH be dead before it's EVER paid off :faint:

ps...unless they DESTROY the dollar...which is THE end game...

sammy, overall would you say this good or bad?
I guess you would rather say it does not mean much.
I disagree

[Tom]

Facts, hcap .

Debt = $16 trillion
Projected debt, next 4 years, BY OBAMA's own people - $20 trillion.

Now, hcap, play all you wnat to with your spin, the Big Picture is NOT the deficit - it is the debt and the interest on it.

"Doctor, how is my husband today?"
"Well, good news, Mrs. Pigeon, his fever is was down three degrees this morning."
"Oh, doctor, that is wonderful. When can he come home?"
"Oh, you can take him now. He just died."

Duh.

[Greyfox]

Facts, hcap .

Debt = $16 trillion
Projected debt, next 4 years, BY OBAMA's own people - $20 trillion.

Now, hcap, play all you wnat to with your spin, the Big Picture is NOT the deficit - it is the debt and the interest on it.

"Doctor, how is my husband today?"
"Well, good news, Mrs. Pigeon, his fever is was down three degrees this morning."
"Oh, doctor, that is wonderful. When can he come home?"
"Oh, you can take him now. He just died."



Duh.

Luv it. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[DJofSD]

Liberals in the new age of austerity: penny wise, pound foolish.

[ArlJim78]

the reason the deficit is so bad is the stimulus sham. no it wasn't a one year thing, they have kept spending the stimulus each ensuing year, although they don't even pretend that its going to any shovel ready projects, it was what I said all along, a government stimulus. the first thing they need to do before any tax increase is to have government go back to prestimulus spending levels. for the life of me i cannot understand why people are so complacent and supportive of a government that lies and committs so many crimes.

[delayjf]

Do you forget the surplus that was handed to W? Do you think lowering taxes and fighting two wars would not cost us

Clinton's Claim to running surplus was based on the Feds public dept it does not include the intergovermental debt (money borrowed from social security). If you add all that up, Clinton did not run a surplus in any year of his administration. Including his last year, what he handed Bush was a recession.

[thaskalos]

Clinton's Claim to running surplus was based on the Feds public dept it does not include the intergovermental debt (money borrowed from social security). If you add all that up, Clinton did not run a surplus in any year of his administration. Including his last year, what he handed Bush was a recession.

It is not a simple matter to compare presidents, because they don't all inherit the same circumstances when they assume the position. When you assess a president's tenure...you have to keep in mind where he started from.

In that light, Obama might be bad...but Bush was a disaster.

[Greyfox]

In that light, Obama might be bad...but Bush was a disaster.

The two worst Presidents in my lifetime - back to back.

God Bless America if it can survive 16 years in a row of those two dolts.

[delayjf]

It is not a simple matter to compare presidents

I not comparing Presidents, I'm just addressing the myth of the Clinton Surplus.

I assume your biggest problem with Bush was the war. One question, had we found massive stockpiles of WMD's would it have been justified in your mind?

[Tom]

We did get Libya's nukes.
Imagine what the 9/11 attack might have been.

btw, can anyone post a chart showing the monthly cost the Bush wars as opposed the monthly interest on the debt under Obama?

[Robert Goren]

We did get Libya's nukes.
Imagine what the 9/11 attack might have been.

btw, can anyone post a chart showing the monthly cost the Bush wars as opposed the monthly interest on the debt under Obama?It tough tell because we paying the Iraq War for years. We have injured soldiers and their families to take care for the rest of their lives. Then their is cost of raising the dead soldiers's childern. These are things will should and will do, but it is costly.

[Tom]

These are things will should and will do, but it is costly.

How much more could we do if we were not paying the ridiculous interest on Obama's debt, and then we plan on adding another 4-5 tril on top of that.
Sad, we have no leaders on the left who understand debt.

[DJofSD]

Oh, I dare say, he understands it alright. He just does not care. Let them shop at Walmart (and buy cake to eat).

[Steve R]

We did get Libya's nukes.
Imagine what the 9/11 attack might have been.

btw, can anyone post a chart showing the monthly cost the Bush wars as opposed the monthly interest on the debt under Obama?
Probably not possible because the wars are off budget. However, the interest on the national debt in fiscal 2012 was much lower in absolute dollars than in each of the last three years of the Bush administration.

2012, $360 billion
2008, $451 billion
2007, $430 billion
2006, $406 billion
Source: www.treasurydirect.gov

The interest on the national debt in 2012 was 2.6% of GDP, lowest since at least 2000. The average annual interest on the debt during the Obama administration is 3.0%, exactly the same as it was during the eight years of the Bush administration.
Source: www.treasurydirect.gov and www.multpl.com

[fast4522]

Surely socialists from outside the United States would like to have an effect on how we think in the United States because they post here regularly, the real question is if they are worthy of the steam off our shit. Everyone is different, my take is that they are not even close to being worthy to scrape the gum of from the bottom of our shoes.

[hcap]

Surely socialists from outside the United States would like to have an effect on how we think in the United States because they post here regularly, the real question is if they are worthy of the steam off our shit. Everyone is different, my take is that they are not even close to being worthy to scrape the gum of from the bottom of our shoes.
I may be wrong, but it appears all the "steam and gum" you mentioned is pretty much what you post.

[Robert Goren]

I not comparing Presidents, I'm just addressing the myth of the Clinton Surplus.

I assume your biggest problem with Bush was the war. One question, had we found massive stockpiles of WMD's would it have been justified in your mind? There was not even a myth of a surplus under Bush and that is not even counting the money spent on the wars which were off budget. Welfare for the rich costs real money even though the conservatives likes to pretend it does not. By the way, where were the budget hawks when it was decided to take the wars off budget? One could imagine the uproar if a democrat tried that.

[Tom]

By the way, where were the budget hawks when it was decided to take the wars off budget?

I was here bitching about the 10 billion a month.
Do a search.

Interest on the debt is projected to be over a trillion by 2020.

[HUSKER55]

It's too bad the average voter doesn't comprehend economics. Undersrtanding the deficit becomes more understanding the family budget to most. It's akind to a view that world is flat.


PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS DEFECIT IS A GOOD THING? This voter doesn't understand the economics of which you speak.

[Greyfox]

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS DEFECIT IS A GOOD THING? This voter doesn't understand the economics of which you speak.

Of course it isn't a good thing.

I think that capper al is referring to the fact that in contrast to the average home owner's budget, the Government can just print more money and the home owner can't.
Thus with that more money the Debt and Deficit can be increased.
In the meanwhile, the American dollar becomes devalued on the world market, because more of it has been printed.
As the American dollar goes down, other countries currency increases.
This enables America to sell more exports and as a result provide more jobs for Americans. At least, that's the theory on paper.
(It also means that Americans cannot spend as much on imported goods or travel offshore.)
But at the end of the day, the interest on the Deficit still has to be paid.
And it is a legacy for future generations to bear.

[Jay Trotter]

Wow, here's a "drive by" post if ever there was one...
Surely socialists from outside the United States would like to have an effect on how we think in the United States because they post here regularlySo, if you're not American you don't have the right to post in a "discussion" forum? Anyone from outside the U.S. is a socialist? How is posting one's opinion kin to trying to effect how you think?

...the real question is if they are worthy of the steam off our shit. In your case that would be a big "NO" because you gotta be one big ass steaming pile of it!

...my take is that they are not even close to being worthy to scrape the gum of from the bottom of our shoes.Speechless! :faint:

[hcap]

Jay,

fast was quite loud before the election for a few years about filthy Socialist Dems and Commie Obama. Insisting the American people would revolt and take the White House and the country back. He preferred the word filth to describe any non-reactionaries and non-Tea Party types. I once counted his favorite word a dozen times in 2 small paragraphs.

I guess he is hemorrhaging all that internal built up "filth", just about now.

[Jay Trotter]

fast was quite loud before the election for a few years ....Well, I get a little heated when I get the impression that non-Americans should really not be posting here in Off-Topics or specifically on U.S. related issues.

I would think that those who enjoy debate and discussing issues would welcome some "outside" opinions. America is the leader of the free world and impacts the lives of most everyone (and especially Canada), so I would think that I would be an ignoramous if I wasn't taking an interest.

As well, I kind of call PaceAdvantage my second home/family and it would be a shame if I couldn't fully participate. Believe me, I read almost every post in here and my comments are actually quite limited compared to what I read.

Anyway, I'm feeling a bit daring today, so I'll throw it out there.....if 10 members post in this thread "we don't want non-American input" then I'll take a 6 month hiatis from Off-Topics (expect for Sports - someone's gotta run the golf pool).

Trotski :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Well, I get a little heated when I get the impression that non-Americans should really not be posting here in Off-Topics or specifically on U.S. related issues.

...

I'm thinking you may be jumping the gun a bit here. I think perhaps Mr. Fast was describing his dismay at having socialist opinion shaping US perspectives, and that most of our self-described socialist contributors that are vocal (okay, the one, Steve R) happen to be "non-American". I'm not sure that I read anything there that suggests that people in general that aren't American shouldn't post here, or really even that socialists shouldn't post here. I just read that he thinks the opinions of socialists are worth less than steamy shit or shoe-gum. That's hardly an uncommon opinion around here, but I'm not sure that I'd equate it to the entirety of the Pace Advantage community wanting to stifle any unpopular opinion, least of all those that are merely from "non-Americans".

[thaskalos]

Anyway, I'm feeling a bit daring today, so I'll throw it out there.....if 10 members post in this thread "we don't want non-American input" then I'll take a 6 month hiatis from Off-Topics (expect for Sports - someone's gotta run the golf pool).

Trotski :ThmbUp:
Well Jay...I'll tell you what then. If 10 Americans on this board DO declare that they don't want any more non-American input -- and that causes you to stop posting -- then I'll make sure to post TWICE as often as I do now...in order to pick up the slack.

Some of us foreigners have struggled to establish ourselves in this country...and learning the English language was not a piece of cake for many of us.

So proud are we, in fact, of our newly acquired English-speaking and writing skills...that we endeavor to show them off by posting here as often as we can. And we couldn't care less what folks like fast4522 think of our opinions.

[JustRalph]

Jay, didn't you identify yourself as being communist recently?

[delayjf]

There was not even a myth of a surplus under Bush
True, but nobody is claiming there was.

Liberals like to take a static view of tax rates and federal revenue - as if all one has to do is raise the rates and the revenues will come with absolutely no effect on the economy.

If President Clintons tax policy was so superior to Bush's, then why was the Bush Administration able to produce more federal revenues than The Clinton Administration - despite the fact that Clinton's economy was much better than Bush's?

[Jay Trotter]

Jay, didn't you identify yourself as being communist recently?Not that I'm aware of! I would describe myself as an entrepeneur with a social concience if anything.

Of course, I do like to use sarcasm once in awhile, so maybe I said something in jest?

[fast4522]

Everyone is different, just glad the pelt stuck on the barn wall. When it comes time to kick you will know exactly why. I think the outcome might have been different if the union employees did not feel threatened (cops & fire personnel) by more Governors going after negotiations and labor deals its city's can not afford. What is missing is that no one cares there is no money to cover liberal agenda. 16 trillion is more than enough money to hate, when it climes to 20 look for hate to be exponential to those with liberal views.

[hcap]

Everyone is different, just glad the pelt stuck on the barn wall. When it comes time to kick you will know exactly why. I think the outcome might have been different if the union employees did not feel threatened (cops & fire personnel) by more Governors going after negotiations and labor deals its city's can not afford. What is missing is that no one cares there is no money to cover liberal agenda. 16 trillion is more than enough money to hate, when it climes to 20 look for hate to be exponential to those with liberal views.

Fast, try to understand this deep thought........

2 elephants are sitting in a bathtub. One says "Pass the soap"
The other replies "No soap Radio" Both break out in uncontrollable laughter

......Get it?

[fast4522]

Hey, not only do I get it but here is one for you . . . .

Hey where is Hcap, he has not posted in months. . . . . :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just waiting for the drivel to stop naturally.

[Greyfox]

Hey, not only do I get it but here is one for you . . . .

Hey where is Hcap, he has not posted in months. . . . . :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just waiting for the drivel to stop naturally.

Idiotic laughter is hard to explain on this planet.

[JustRalph]

Idiotic laughter is hard to explain on this planet.

It's even harder on other planets...........

[badcompany]

Anyway, I'm feeling a bit daring today, so I'll throw it out there.....if 10 members post in this thread "we don't want non-American input" then I'll take a 6 month hiatis from Off-Topics (expect for Sports - someone's gotta run the golf pool).

Trotski :ThmbUp:

I could care less the Nationality of the poster. I'm an equal-opportunity Socialist/Interventionist/Welfare State argument crusher.

As an aside, if you're gonna do another PA shirt, may I suggest something with a simple logo on the front and a horseracing scene on the back.

Something like this:

http://www.saratogian.com/content/articles/2009/06/30/news/doc4a4980651a19d9448934162.jpg

[PaceAdvantage]

As an aside, if you're gonna do another PA shirt, may I suggest something with a simple logo on the front and a horseracing scene on the back. Oh brother... :rolleyes:

[HUSKER55]

hey JT, in regards to your earlier post,

I have heard socialism referred to many things but never sarcasim.
:D

nice touch!