T
- Status
N
NotCrazyDan
Guest
Only a 1.6 Trillion dollar deficit forecast projected.
I’m sleeping so much easier now. I’m so glad that instead of being thrown into the ocean with 2 cinderblocks strapped to us we’re only getting thrown in with 1.8 cinderblocks.
Yay us.
I’m sleeping so much easier now. I’m so glad that instead of being thrown into the ocean with 2 cinderblocks strapped to us we’re only getting thrown in with 1.8 cinderblocks.
Yay us.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
So you wouldn’t care if the Democrats proposed an 8% increase in the deficit either, I take it.
N
NotCrazyDan
Guest
I expect it of them, but I’m sure they’ll wait till after November. I find it interesting that President Obama is telling the press that he’s going to destroy the country at an 8% slower rate than he did last year, with the expectation that this ‘news’ will cause us to think better of the way he’s running things.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
“The White House has forecast a $1.6 trillion budget deficit this year, or about 10.6 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level since World War Two.”
Yeah! Thanks Obama!
Yeah! Thanks Obama!
C
Charlotte408
Guest
And the unemployment rate is what… 9 point something…“The White House has forecast a $1.6 trillion budget deficit this year, or about 10.6 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level since World War Two.”
Yeah! Thanks Obama!
and this month, the highest rate of home foreclosures since the Mortgage crisis STARTED…
yeah…THANKS! Because the ‘deficit’ means a whole lot to people like me.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
You’ve got to stop posting such bad news for the Tea Party!
My take is that Obama & co. are not ideologues who are bent on saddling with country with permanent astronomical debts. They (and Bush, to his credit) did what they had to do to stop the slide into depression. He and the brain trust realize this debt load is a big problem and they have to do something about it.
This is good news! Let’s hope the debt keeps going down.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I doubt it’s bad news for the Tea Party.
From the article:
"The Treasury earlier released a statement that showed a cumulative $181 billion of money disbursed to stabilize the financial system had been repaid through March, and noted that estimates for the program’s final cost were falling.
“While the positive news is welcome, it is premature and irresponsible to be making deficit projections for the fiscal year as a whole,” said Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
“The Administration will issue revised deficit numbers as part of the Mid-Session Review this summer,” Baer said."
So, nearly 200 billion of the reduction is due to TARP repayments by banks which, by the way, are highly profitable to the government when you consider the below-market warrants the government has. That gets us back to “no decrease”, because the TARP repayments were 2008 expenditures, repaid in 2010, with interest and profitable warrants. That’s just bookkeeping, and remember (as liberals like to do) the bank part of TARP was a Bush program.
Of course, the one-party government has more deficit-producing programs on its menu. 2010 is come, but not yet gone.
From the article:
"The Treasury earlier released a statement that showed a cumulative $181 billion of money disbursed to stabilize the financial system had been repaid through March, and noted that estimates for the program’s final cost were falling.
“While the positive news is welcome, it is premature and irresponsible to be making deficit projections for the fiscal year as a whole,” said Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
“The Administration will issue revised deficit numbers as part of the Mid-Session Review this summer,” Baer said."
So, nearly 200 billion of the reduction is due to TARP repayments by banks which, by the way, are highly profitable to the government when you consider the below-market warrants the government has. That gets us back to “no decrease”, because the TARP repayments were 2008 expenditures, repaid in 2010, with interest and profitable warrants. That’s just bookkeeping, and remember (as liberals like to do) the bank part of TARP was a Bush program.
Of course, the one-party government has more deficit-producing programs on its menu. 2010 is come, but not yet gone.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Of course it does. You could see it if it weren’t for your constantly rolling eyes.And the unemployment rate is what… 9 point something…
and this month, the highest rate of home foreclosures since the Mortgage crisis STARTED…
yeah…THANKS! Because the ‘deficit’ means a whole lot to people like me.
- Government spending is an established method of stimulating the economy. That is exactly what WW2 was.
- It is easy to get people worked up about government debt, and as long as it remains high, politicians looking for ways to thwart their opponent’s plans will use it as a cudgel.
- “People like you” (taken to mean unemployed or people who were foreclosed on) theoretically want economic recovery.
This is why the deficit matters. If Democrats can show themselves to be fiscally responsible through deficit reduction, people will be more inclined to accept their economic stimulus spending. Equivalently, a large deficit allows Republicans to impede recovery measures.
C
Charlotte408
Guest
aha ha! oh you got jokes huh?
Eh. Proof is in the pudding. Ridgerunner seems to disagree with you. Numbers are numbers and GDP and Deficit all of that means SQUAT to me. Especially after reading 1984 man you guys could tell me the GDP is astronomically high and the deficit is nil and I would have no way of knowing- all I know is what I see, and what I see is, NONE of my friends having a job, NO ONE in my family having a job (except my mom who is working full time supporting the house) and me, working part time, and barely getting by.
Did you get that? NONE of my friends have jobs right now.
I thank GOD everyday I’ve been able to cling on to my part time job, they just laid off all kinds of people, people that had been there 40+ years! And trying to find a full time job? No way! No one is hiring full time, only part time because of this Obama Care stuff and they flat out tell you-- its totally scandalous. And everyones losing their homes. And then you, want to tell me, some magic number floating around in where ever land as if thats going to make me FEEL better.
Besos to you Centrist I don’t mean to take any aggression out on you, I know you only mean well by posting this information.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
“help from the government” is part of the problem.
Here, let’s just help these people buy a house…oops, none of them could afford it and now they are under forclosure. Sorry!
Thanks government!
Meanwhile…
Pipe dreams will be our end.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Government programs are still generating junk loans. I see them all the time. Some of them finance 100% of the purchase price, all costs and give money to the borrower besides. And taxpayers are guaranteeing those loans.
I think by now everybody knows the reason why unemployment is so high is that those who might otherwise invest in plant, equipment and employees are afraid to do any of those things. They don’t know what their taxes will be. They don’t know what their energy costs will be. They don’t know what their health insurance burdens will be. They don’t know if “card check”, promised by Obama, will get done in a “lame duck” session. They don’t know what the regulatory agencies are doing, let alone what they’re going to do under the extremely open regulatory powers some of the latest enactments have in them. They don’t know what their borrowing costs will be when the overspending causes interest rates to go up, so they don’t borrow. The only thing they really know is that this government is bound and determined to adversely affect them in all of those areas. They know it because those in power have said those are the things they are going to do, and they have already done some of them.
Spending more “stimulus” money won’t help the real problem at all. It will, in fact, exacerbate it.
What will also exacerbate it is “more of same”. The longer this goes on, the less and less business people will do anything forward looking; something they usually do. That was one of the problems in the Great Depression. Those who might invest or hire ahead of expansion plans, just quit doing it. Once they quit doing that, it takes even longer to recover anything like a normal economy because nobody has prepared for it in advance.
N
NotCrazyDan
Guest
I think you might be misunderstanding the difference between ‘deficit’ and ‘debt’You’ve got to stop posting such bad news for the Tea Party!
My take is that Obama & co. are not ideologues who are bent on saddling with country with permanent astronomical debts. They (and Bush, to his credit) did what they had to do to stop the slide into depression. He and the brain trust realize this debt load is a big problem and they have to do something about it.
This is good news! Let’s hope the debt keeps going down.
Debt is how much you owe.
Deficit is how much is going to be added to what you owe.
When they say the ‘deficit is down 10%’, what they’re really saying is that instead of adding 1.8 Trillion to the debt we’re going to add 1.6 Trillion.
This is hardly something to cheer over.
- Status