Thank you Democrats: Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government
Leroy N. Soetoro
adding layers of additional unrelated pork, and stupid legislation like
a hate crimes bill. That is exactly why America is deeply in debt
today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html
WASHINGTON � The United States government is financing its more than
trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with i.o.u.�s on terms that seem too
good to be true.
But that happy situation, aided by ultralow interest rates, may not last
much longer.
Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new
debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months
ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon
as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.
Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today�s low rates by
exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government
faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of
overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.
With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House
estimates that the government�s tab for servicing the debt will exceed
$700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if
annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the
figure could be much higher.
In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense
would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for
education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The potential for rapidly escalating interest payouts is just one of the
wrenching challenges facing the United States after decades of living
beyond its means.
The surge in borrowing over the last year or two is widely judged to
have been a necessary response to the financial crisis and the deep
recession, and there is still a raging debate over how aggressively to
bring down deficits over the next few years. But there is little doubt
that the United States� long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to
postpone.
Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded
consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock
prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in
the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring
baby boomers are set to explode.
The competing demands could deepen political battles over the size and
role of the government, the trade-offs between taxes and spending, the
choices between helping older generations versus younger ones, and the
bottom-line questions about who should ultimately shoulder the burden.
�The government is on teaser rates,� said Robert Bixby, executive
director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates
lower deficits. �We�re taking out a huge mortgage right now, but we
won�t feel the pain until later.�
So far, the demand for Treasury securities from investors and other
governments around the world has remained strong enough to hold down the
interest rates that the United States must offer to sell them. Indeed,
the government paid less interest on its debt this year than in 2008,
even though it added almost $2 trillion in debt.
The government�s average interest rate on new borrowing last year fell
below 1 percent. For short-term i.o.u.�s like one-month Treasury bills,
its average rate was only sixteen-hundredths of a percent.
�All of the auction results have been solid,� said Matthew Rutherford,
the Treasury�s deputy assistant secretary in charge of finance
operations. �Investor demand has been very broad, and it�s been
increasing in the last couple of years.�
The problem, many analysts say, is that record government deficits have
arrived just as the long-feared explosion begins in spending on benefits
under Medicare and Social Security. The nation�s oldest baby boomers are
approaching 65, setting off what experts have warned for years will be a
fiscal nightmare for the government.
�What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away
nuts for the winter,� said William H. Gross, managing director of the
Pimco Group, the giant bond-management firm. �The United States is not
only not saving nuts, it�s eating the ones left over from the last
winter.�
The current low rates on the country�s debt were caused by temporary
factors that are already beginning to fade. One factor was the economic
crisis itself, which caused panicked investors around the world to plow
their money into the comparative safety of Treasury bills and notes.
Even though the United States was the epicenter of the global crisis,
investors viewed Treasury securities as the least dangerous place to
park their money.
On top of that, the Fed used almost every tool in its arsenal to push
interest rates down even further. It cut the overnight federal funds
rate, the rate at which banks lend reserves to one another, to almost
zero. And to reduce longer-term rates, it bought more than $1.5 trillion
worth of Treasury bonds and government-guaranteed securities linked to
mortgages.
Those conditions are already beginning to change. Global investors are
shifting money into riskier investments like stocks and corporate bonds,
and they have been pouring money into fast-growing countries like Brazil
and China.
The Fed, meanwhile, is already halting its efforts at tamping down
long-term interest rates. Fed officials ended their $300 billion program
to buy up Treasury bonds last month, and they have announced plans to
stop buying mortgage-backed securities by the end of next March.
Eventually, though probably not until at least mid-2010, the Fed will
also start raising its benchmark interest rate back to more historically
normal levels.
The United States will not be the only government competing to refinance
huge debt. Japan, Germany, Britain and other industrialized countries
have even higher government debt loads, measured as a share of their
gross domestic product, and they too borrowed heavily to combat the
financial crisis and economic downturn. As the global economy recovers
and businesses raise capital to finance their growth, all that new
government debt is likely to put more upward pressure on interest rates.
Even a small increase in interest rates has a big impact. An increase of
one percentage point in the Treasury�s average cost of borrowing would
cost American taxpayers an extra $80 billion this year � about equal to
the combined budgets of the Department of Energy and the Department of
Education.
But that could seem like a relatively modest pinch. Alan Levenson, chief
economist at T. Rowe Price, estimated that the Treasury�s tab for debt
service this year would have been $221 billion higher if it had faced
the same interest rates as it did last year.
The White House estimates that the government will have to borrow about
$3.5 trillion more over the next three years. On top of that, the
Treasury has to refinance, or roll over, a huge amount of short-term
debt that was issued during the financial crisis. Treasury officials
estimate that about 36 percent of the government�s marketable debt �
about $1.6 trillion � is coming due in the months ahead.
To lock in low interest rates in the years ahead, Treasury officials are
trying to replace one-month and three-month bills with 10-year and
30-year Treasury securities. That strategy will save taxpayers money in
the long run. But it pushes up costs drastically in the short run,
because interest rates are higher for long-term debt.
Adding to the pressure, the Fed is set to begin reversing some of the
policies it has been using to prop up the economy. Wall Street firms
advising the Treasury recently estimated that the Fed�s purchases of
Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities pushed down long-term
interest rates by about one-half of a percentage point. Removing that
support could in itself add $40 billion to the government�s annual tab
for debt service.
This month, the Treasury Department�s private-sector advisory committee
on debt management warned of the risks ahead.
�Inflation, higher interest rate and rollover risk should be the primary
concerns,� declared the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a group
of market experts that provide guidance to the government, on Nov. 4.
�Clever debt management strategy,� the group said, �can�t completely
substitute for prudent fiscal policy.�
--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
Rangel's tax evasion.
hal
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>Thank the Democrats who would not pass any GWB war funding, without
>adding layers of additional unrelated pork, and stupid legislation like
>a hate crimes bill. That is exactly why America is deeply in debt
>today.
No, it was because Bush started the illegal and hugely expensive war
in the first place, and literally doubled the deficit. But somehow
that was ok with you. That's because you're a lying, cocksucking
hypocrite.
John Galt
How do you know it was OK with him?
JG
Buerste
<hal> wrote in message news:4b0f0344....@news.newsguy.com...
Democrats funded it.
kim
wrote:
Not a single damn Republican complained about debt until Bush Jr.
left.
John Galt
Factually incorrect. There were massive complains from some of the
right-wing talkers and the conservative wing of the party. Those are
easy to research.
JG
kim
wrote:
Name a couple? What did they factually get done to stop the spending?
I've done my checking.
John Galt
Michael Savage, for one. Pat Buchanan for another. Both, no surprise,
were against the Iraq adventure from the begininng. Jud Gregg has
consistenly been a deficit hawk since he voted NAY on Medicare Part D,
as has Jeff Flake, Jim DeMint, John Shaddegg, and Mike Pence.
What did they factually get done to stop the spending?
The first two are pundits. They speak against stuff. The rest have
consistently expressed their concerns about budgetary matters.
But, the larger story is this:
1) The Bush spending record was irresponsible. That said, even tried and
true deficit hawks voted for some of this spending plans out of party
loyalty. That's politics. The Dems do it too. They voted 100% (in the
Senate) for the 838 B "stimulus" package that was "guaranteed" to keep
us under 8% unemployment, and that we have no way of paying for, all of
which is being funded by Chinese loans and our children.
So, don't broadcast this *shit*, if you please, about supposed GOP
hypocrisy on the debt, while the Dems are in the process of doing
precisely the same thing. If you're a deficit hawk, you believe that the
worst thing you can do is vote for unfunded liabilities. Yet all Senate
Dems did just that earlier this year. Now, Evan Bayh is playing the
deficit hawk on Fox just this morning. Please.
2) The Dems gave up their right to claim fiscal responsibility when they
threw Clinton's DLC under the bus this election cycle. The DLC has been
the source of sound Democrat economic thinking for a decade, but the
"progressives" made it crystal clear that if you wanted their support
last cycle, you treat the DLC and their ideas like lepers.
What we've seen out of the Dem Congress this year is a reversion to
their Johnson/Carter form and a repudiation of Clintonomics. Vast
expenditures of unfunded liabilities based on sketchy claims that we
"need to do this or [enter the catastrophic analogy of your choice].
What difference does it make, I would ask, whether we spend too much
money because so-and-so is a military threat, or we spend too much
because we really really really want some social program so-so-so badly?
None. Both parties are crappy and irresponsible.
TODAY, the Dems are chirping that "most of the deficit happens under GOP
presidents." No shit, sherlock. The GOP usually runs the White House.
Whoever runs the place most racks up most of the debt, obviously,
because so much of the budget is out of control of the White House. We
already know (and did know, even before Obama started shoveling money
overboard) that within 10 years, most of the debt will be "caused by the
Dems" because of what's about to happen, demographically, to SS,
Medicare, and Medicaid.
At which time the Dems will abandon that metric and move on to
cherrypick some other metric that benefits them, I have no doubt.
A pox on both their houses. But anyone who really thinks one is better
than the other doesn't know how to run a spreadsheet.
JG
kim
wrote:
Which one was more responsible for this mess?
John Galt
The citizens of the United States of America, for not paying attention
to WTF the politicians were doing to us, and encouraging them by
simultaneously demanding more services, lower taxes, and large military
spending.
At the end of the day, the politicians do what they're voted in to do.
JG
Michael Coburn
The debt payments mentioned in the subject line of this lying Republican
presentation are the payments from Republican debt. The borrowings for
the stimulus are not yet due and short term debt is currently being
rolled into longer term instruments.
And BTW, the "success" of the stimulus is not measured against the 8%
claim by anyone other than rightarded screech monkeys who have less
economic acumen than a turnip. The _FACT_ is that the stimulus kept
unemployment from being worse. That is the judgment of _ALL_ economists
that are in any way credible. There will come a point in time where it
MAY be possible to say that all the producers would have taken wages so
low as to make American exports cheaper then Chinese exports and thus we
would have full employment. That is a _VALID_ economic position. But
most of the people in this country would not be very happy with that
result.
>>So, don't broadcast this *shit*, if you please, about supposed GOP
>>hypocrisy on the debt, while the Dems are in the process of doing
>>precisely the same thing.
But they are NOT doing the same thing. They are not INVENTING wars and
cutting taxes.
>> If you're a deficit hawk, you believe that the
>>worst thing you can do is vote for unfunded liabilities. Yet all Senate
>>Dems did just that earlier this year. Now, Evan Bayh is playing the
>>deficit hawk on Fox just this morning. Please.
Evan Bayh is a DINO.
>>2) The Dems gave up their right to claim fiscal responsibility when they
>>threw Clinton's DLC under the bus this election cycle. The DLC has been
>>the source of sound Democrat economic thinking for a decade, but the
>>"progressives" made it crystal clear that if you wanted their support
>>last cycle, you treat the DLC and their ideas like lepers.
YEP!
>>What we've seen out of the Dem Congress this year is a reversion to
>>their Johnson/Carter form and a repudiation of Clintonomics. Vast
>>expenditures of unfunded liabilities based on sketchy claims that we
>>"need to do this or [enter the catastrophic analogy of your choice].
>>What difference does it make, I would ask, whether we spend too much
>>money because so-and-so is a military threat, or we spend too much
>>because we really really really want some social program so-so-so badly?
>>
>>None. Both parties are crappy and irresponsible.
The solution is to raise taxes on the wealthy and to SLOWLY bring the war
crap under control.
>>TODAY, the Dems are chirping that "most of the deficit happens under GOP
>>presidents." No shit, sherlock. The GOP usually runs the White House.
>>Whoever runs the place most racks up most of the debt, obviously,
>>because so much of the budget is out of control of the White House. We
>>already know (and did know, even before Obama started shoveling money
>>overboard) that within 10 years, most of the debt will be "caused by the
>>Dems" because of what's about to happen, demographically, to SS,
>>Medicare, and Medicaid.
This sort of deranged idiocy is what we all expect from lying Republican
pigs. It never changes. The ONLY solutions to the demographic problems
are an increase in funding or trowing the old people under the bus. That
is called _REALITY_. Tax cuts are not going to get the job done.
>>At which time the Dems will abandon that metric and move on to
>>cherrypick some other metric that benefits them, I have no doubt.
>>
>>A pox on both their houses. But anyone who really thinks one is better
>>than the other doesn't know how to run a spreadsheet.
>>
>>JG
I use spreadsheets all the time. I just don't use them for political
economy because they do not serve.
> Which one was more responsible for this mess?
The Republicans _OWNED_ the entire government from 2001 through 2007.
From 2007 through 2009 they owned both the presidency and the Senate. The
Senate Republicans plus Cheney = 50 Republicans in the Senate with only
49 Democrats during the 2007 - 2009 legislative session. LIEberman was
and still is a lying pig Republican spy caucusing with the Democrats and
that makes 51 Republicans in the Senate with 50 Dems counting Sanders.
They essentially _owned_ two of the 3 branches (the executive, the House,
and the Senate) for 20 out of the 28 years between 1981 and 2009. The
Democrats held the majority of the 3 power power centers for only 8 years
(from 1987 - 1995) 14 years ago.\
Yet these sicj lying pigs continue to blame the 2008 - 2009 recession on
Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. It is a real exercise in fascist pig shit.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
The citizens were CONSTANTLY lied to by Republicans that used "national
security" and trumped up boogerman garbage along with corporate
controlled media to spread fascist propaganda and rightarded dogma.
Most Americans put some amount of faith in their elected
representatives. And when those representatives are dedicated to the
total destruction of representative government then we get what we have
gotten.
kim
I agree. We don't vote to get screwed.
It is surprising to me that most Republicans cannot accept the fact,
even though W Bush has, that W started the wars and spending.
John Galt
Apparently I wasn't clear, since neither of you seem to have understood
my point, which I see as relatively obvious:
What a president does isn't solely up to him. Current events are often
out of his control. If 9/11 had happened two years earlier, we'd be
talking about the deficit Clinton ran up, not Bush, because outside of
Iraq, the response would have been the same.
In the case of Reagan, the public perception existed that Carter had
starved the military. Reagan ran on a platform of re-building the
military in the face of Soviet sabre-rattling, which was hardly a "lie",
in that they had themselves moved to invade Afghanistan during Carter's
term. So, after election, he fulfilled the will of the people.
TODAY, on paper, for whatever reason, about 2/3 on a NPV calcuation of
the national deficit has been rung up by GOP presidents. This will be
about 50/50 at the end of Obama's first term, and then skyrocket as
unfunded committments by Democratic presidents (SS, Medicare, Medicaid,
and whateverthehell the Rookie-in-Chief comes up with) hit the books.
So, Democrats, enjoy your Fifteen Minutes of Fame as the Party of Fiscal
Responsibility. It's already scheduled to end, and the end is inevitable.
JG
kim
wrote:
>> I agree. We don't vote to get screwed.
>>
>> It is surprising to me that most Republicans cannot accept the fact,
>> even though W Bush has, that W started the wars and spending.
>
>Apparently I wasn't clear, since neither of you seem to have understood
>my point, which I see as relatively obvious:
>
>What a president does isn't solely up to him. Current events are often
>out of his control. If 9/11 had happened two years earlier, we'd be
>talking about the deficit Clinton ran up, not Bush, because outside of
>Iraq, the response would have been the same.
>
>In the case of Reagan, the public perception existed that Carter had
>starved the military. Reagan ran on a platform of re-building the
>military in the face of Soviet sabre-rattling, which was hardly a "lie",
>in that they had themselves moved to invade Afghanistan during Carter's
>term. So, after election, he fulfilled the will of the people.
>
>TODAY, on paper, for whatever reason, about 2/3 on a NPV calcuation of
>the national deficit has been rung up by GOP presidents. This will be
>about 50/50 at the end of Obama's first term, and then skyrocket as
>unfunded committments by Democratic presidents (SS, Medicare, Medicaid,
>and whateverthehell the Rookie-in-Chief comes up with) hit the books.
>
>So, Democrats, enjoy your Fifteen Minutes of Fame as the Party of Fiscal
>Responsibility. It's already scheduled to end, and the end is inevitable.
>
>JG
>
>
I think you don't get the point. Bush admitted he was responsible for
taking the U.S. into war. Congress may have authorized him, but it
was his decision. After all, wasn't he the "Decider"? He was the one
who said it would cost 50 billion. Yet after he left, we were 5
trillion deeper in debt. Which means 5 trillion + 15 trillion for
taxes collected in the 5 yrs he was in charge of the war.
John Galt
Which makes it a bipartisan joint decision. There's really no other way
to look at it, constitutionally. Congress holds the purse strings. Bush
can say "go to war", but if Congress says "sorry, no money", they're not
going far.
And, that's happened before. Read up on how both the Civil and Spanish
American War were funded.
That's why all these "whose fault is the debt" discussions are
fundamentally flawed. The President decides, but only Congress can fund.
After all, wasn't he the "Decider"? He was the one
> who said it would cost 50 billion. Yet after he left, we were 5
> trillion deeper in debt. Which means 5 trillion + 15 trillion for
> taxes collected in the 5 yrs he was in charge of the war.
He was wrong. They all were. And Congress always had the ability to stop
it. The GOP wouldn't. Why didn't the Dems, starting in 2007?
JG
Michael Coburn
In the case of W. this is quite obvious. W was a better actor than
Reagan ever was. He had an IQ of room temperature on a good day. The
Iraq invasion was a Rovian and Cheney maneuver to keep fascism alive and
Republicans in control for as long as possible while the cons diminished
the currency and channeled great gobs of notes into the hands of the
Republican pigs. The method of government destruction is to discredit its
money and its institutions. And the Republican pigs succeeded admirably.
> Current events are often
> out of his control. If 9/11 had happened two years earlier, we'd be
> talking about the deficit Clinton ran up, not Bush, because outside of
> Iraq, the response would have been the same.
No it would not, you lying sack of Republican butt sucking scum. Bill
Clinton would not have cut taxes on high ordinary income because that
fiscal policy had already proved itself. And if war was needed he would
have at least attempted a war tax on those with income in excess of $500k
and perhaps an even higher tax on incomes in excess of a million or 10
million.
> In the case of Reagan, the public perception existed that Carter had
> starved the military. Reagan ran on a platform of re-building the
> military in the face of Soviet sabre-rattling, which was hardly a "lie",
> in that they had themselves moved to invade Afghanistan during Carter's
> term. So, after election, he fulfilled the will of the people.
Yes... He cit taxes and that is always popular.
> TODAY, on paper, for whatever reason, about 2/3 on a NPV calcuation of
> the national deficit has been rung up by GOP presidents. This will be
> about 50/50 at the end of Obama's first term, and then skyrocket as
> unfunded committments by Democratic presidents (SS, Medicare, Medicaid,
> and whateverthehell the Rookie-in-Chief comes up with) hit the books.
Not if he increases taxation on high ordinary incomes in excess of $250k
and more importantly ordinary incomes of even higher denomination as he
should, buttercup. He can also institute an across the board low level
import tariff.
> So, Democrats, enjoy your Fifteen Minutes of Fame as the Party of Fiscal
> Responsibility. It's already scheduled to end, and the end is
> inevitable.
The last time the budget was balanced it was done by raising taxes on
high level ordinary incomes in 1993. The surplus would not have occurred
until 2002 had it not been for the bubble blowing Republican tax cuts to
the rich in 1997. That initial bubble resulted in an early elimination
of the deficits but also may have created the recession of 2001.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
looking at the actual slope on tax revenues prior to the Republican tax
cuts for the rich and home ownership bubbleizer crap of the Newt Gingrich
Congress in 1997, the budget would have been near balance in 2001 as
opposed to 1999. There WAS a temporary increase in tax revenue that
paralleled the NASDAQ bubble of 1998 - 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble --------------
The "dot-com bubble" (or sometimes the "I.T. bubble"[1]) was a
speculative bubble covering roughly 1998–2000 (with a climax on March 10,
2000 with the NASDAQ peaking at 5132.52) during which stock markets in
Western nations saw their equity value rise rapidly from growth in the
more recent Internet sector and related fields.
------------------------------------------------
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/
Comparison_of_three_stock_indices_after_1975.svg
http://www.investingintelligently.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/
a_history_of_home_values.png
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
When looking for the popper of bubbles, however, it is always good policy
to look at oil prices:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
The point is that in "reality economics" and "reality politics" we try to
look at realities as opposed to strict ideology.
Bert Hyman
<mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> And if war was needed he would have at least attempted a war tax on
> those with income in excess of $500k and perhaps an even higher tax on
> incomes in excess of a million or 10 million.
>
Only "the rich" should have to pay for our foreign adventures?
Really?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Bert Hyman
> No it would not, you lying sack of Republican butt sucking scum.
Well.
That was revealing.
Governor Swill
>>>>> Thank the Democrats who would not pass any GWB war funding, without
>>>>> adding layers of additional unrelated pork, and stupid legislation like
>>>>> a hate crimes bill. That is exactly why America is deeply in debt
>>>>> today.
This is standard practice in the legislative process. That's why that
park got built by the school in your town.
Exactly how much has the hate crimes bill added to the national debt?
>>>> No, it was because Bush started the illegal and hugely expensive war
>>>> in the first place, and literally doubled the deficit. But somehow
>>>> that was ok with you.
Which war? Both of them together are a drop in the bucket compared to
Bush's debt. And he only had Dems to deal with for two years. And if
Bush hadn't wanted that debt, he wouldn't have paid off the
controlling party in Congress to get what he wanted to spend.
>>> How do you know it was OK with him?
>>>
>>> JG
>> Not a single damn Republican complained about debt until Bush Jr.
>> left.
>
>Factually incorrect. There were massive complains from some of the
>right-wing talkers and the conservative wing of the party. Those are
>easy to research.
Ditto. The GOP's fiscal conservatives have been chewing on Bush since
at least 2002. Look how many TSecs he went through before he hired
the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Say, isn't GS posting profits lately? And
Wall Street got the TSec they wanted. Former Chair, Fed Reserve bank
of New York.
Swill
--
In the exam room . . .
Doctor: "Public Opt . . ."
Elephant: "SOCIALISM!"
Doctor: "Reflexes good."
Governor Swill
>>> Not a single damn Republican complained about debt until Bush Jr.
>>> left.
>>
>>Factually incorrect. There were massive complains from some of the
>>right-wing talkers and the conservative wing of the party. Those are
>>easy to research.
>>
>>JG
>Name a couple? What did they factually get done to stop the spending?
>I've done my checking.
Just like the Dems didn't stop Bush from spending when they took both
houses? Congress = whorehouse. That's what they do. It's their job.
John Galt
Since NCLB, to be precise. It wasn't a budget buster, but it broke a
primary principle of conservative governance, which is local control
over whatever can be locally controlled, and ended the charade that he
was any sort of issue conservative.
Medicare Part D just added fuel to the fire, being totally and
completely fiscally irresponsible.
Look how many TSecs he went through before he hired
> the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Say, isn't GS posting profits lately? And
> Wall Street got the TSec they wanted. Former Chair, Fed Reserve bank
> of New York.
Funny that, eh?
JG
>
> Swill
Governor Swill
>> Name a couple?
>
>Michael Savage, for one. Pat Buchanan for another. Both, no surprise,
>were against the Iraq adventure from the begininng. Jud Gregg has
>consistenly been a deficit hawk since he voted NAY on Medicare Part D,
>as has Jeff Flake, Jim DeMint, John Shaddegg, and Mike Pence.
The deficit is a common enough topic on Fox. Since I don't watch it
much, if I find three refs a month to something, I figure they're hot
on it. Yes, the deficit was of concern even on Fox at least during
the second Bush term.
>What did they factually get done to stop the spending?
>
>The first two are pundits. They speak against stuff. The rest have
>consistently expressed their concerns about budgetary matters.
>
>But, the larger story is this:
>
>1) The Bush spending record was irresponsible. That said, even tried and
>true deficit hawks voted for some of this spending plans out of party
>loyalty. That's politics. The Dems do it too. They voted 100% (in the
>Senate) for the 838 B "stimulus" package that was "guaranteed" to keep
>us under 8% unemployment, and that we have no way of paying for, all of
>which is being funded by Chinese loans and our children.
What an old, old story. I've been listening to that kind of talk
about deficits since the 70s and the damn thing just keeps getting
bigger.
It's about the speed of it's growth, the interest rates, and who gets
the money. Tricky Dick played his part in creating this when he took
us off gold and OPEC went exclusively to the dollar.
>So, don't broadcast this *shit*, if you please, about supposed GOP
>hypocrisy on the debt,
Consider it a fact in evidence. GOP + debt = hypocrisy.
> while the Dems are in the process of doing
>precisely the same thing.
If Obama and the Dems contain the 2009 deficit to 1T, I'll consider it
progress. Again, it's not the money, it's how it's spent.
> If you're a deficit hawk, you believe that the
>worst thing you can do is vote for unfunded liabilities. Yet all Senate
>Dems did just that earlier this year. Now, Evan Bayh is playing the
>deficit hawk on Fox just this morning. Please.
How many times did the GOP Congresses from 1995 to 2007 increase the
debt ceiling?
>2) The Dems gave up their right to claim fiscal responsibility when they
>threw Clinton's DLC under the bus this election cycle. The DLC has been
>the source of sound Democrat economic thinking for a decade, but the
>"progressives" made it crystal clear that if you wanted their support
>last cycle, you treat the DLC and their ideas like lepers.
The Clinton's are busy with matters of State. And frankly, two wars
in south Asia and the ME scares me just a little bit more than the
economy.
>What we've seen out of the Dem Congress this year is a reversion to
>their Johnson/Carter form and a repudiation of Clintonomics.
Oh my! Did I just hear someone to the right of me pay a compliment to
Bill Clinton? Somebody in the throes of an anti left diatribe? :-)
> Vast
>expenditures of unfunded liabilities based on sketchy claims that we
>"need to do this or [enter the catastrophic analogy of your choice].
>What difference does it make, I would ask, whether we spend too much
>money because so-and-so is a military threat, or we spend too much
>because we really really really want some social program so-so-so badly?
>
>None. Both parties are crappy and irresponsible.
>
>TODAY, the Dems are chirping that "most of the deficit happens under GOP
>presidents." No shit, sherlock. The GOP usually runs the White House.
>Whoever runs the place most racks up most of the debt, obviously,
>because so much of the budget is out of control of the White House.
Did you mean 'out of' or 'under'.
> We
>already know (and did know, even before Obama started shoveling money
>overboard) that within 10 years, most of the debt will be "caused by the
>Dems" because of what's about to happen, demographically, to SS,
>Medicare, and Medicaid.
Must of the current debt was caused by Republicans. You mean the Dems
don't get a turn at the trough?
Put another way, do you really think the Dems are going to average
over a trillion a year in deficits over the next ten years? Because,
you know, that's what they'd have to do just to become responsible for
half of it.
>At which time the Dems will abandon that metric and move on to
>cherrypick some other metric that benefits them, I have no doubt.
>
>A pox on both their houses. But anyone who really thinks one is better
>than the other doesn't know how to run a spreadsheet.
Agreed. But a government is not a business. It doesn't need a
profit.
John Galt
Yep.
>
>> So, don't broadcast this *shit*, if you please, about supposed GOP
>> hypocrisy on the debt,
>
> Consider it a fact in evidence. GOP + debt = hypocrisy.
It's on both sides. The spending pattern is the only thing that differs.
>
>> while the Dems are in the process of doing
>> precisely the same thing.
>
> If Obama and the Dems contain the 2009 deficit to 1T, I'll consider it
> progress. Again, it's not the money, it's how it's spent.
>
>> If you're a deficit hawk, you believe that the
>> worst thing you can do is vote for unfunded liabilities. Yet all Senate
>> Dems did just that earlier this year. Now, Evan Bayh is playing the
>> deficit hawk on Fox just this morning. Please.
>
> How many times did the GOP Congresses from 1995 to 2007 increase the
> debt ceiling?
About the same number of times the Dem Congresses did during the Reagan
years.
>
>> 2) The Dems gave up their right to claim fiscal responsibility when they
>> threw Clinton's DLC under the bus this election cycle. The DLC has been
>> the source of sound Democrat economic thinking for a decade, but the
>> "progressives" made it crystal clear that if you wanted their support
>> last cycle, you treat the DLC and their ideas like lepers.
>
> The Clinton's are busy with matters of State. And frankly, two wars
> in south Asia and the ME scares me just a little bit more than the
> economy.
>
>> What we've seen out of the Dem Congress this year is a reversion to
>> their Johnson/Carter form and a repudiation of Clintonomics.
>
> Oh my! Did I just hear someone to the right of me pay a compliment to
> Bill Clinton? Somebody in the throes of an anti left diatribe? :-)
Clinton ran the most conservative economic package since Kennedy. The
"sides" can argue about the conditions of that governance -- the extent
the health care debacle forced him to the right, the influence the GOP
Congress had on "Clintonomics", but the net result was a conservative
economic package.
>
>> Vast
>> expenditures of unfunded liabilities based on sketchy claims that we
>> "need to do this or [enter the catastrophic analogy of your choice].
>> What difference does it make, I would ask, whether we spend too much
>> money because so-and-so is a military threat, or we spend too much
>> because we really really really want some social program so-so-so badly?
>>
>> None. Both parties are crappy and irresponsible.
>>
>> TODAY, the Dems are chirping that "most of the deficit happens under GOP
>> presidents." No shit, sherlock. The GOP usually runs the White House.
>> Whoever runs the place most racks up most of the debt, obviously,
>> because so much of the budget is out of control of the White House.
>
> Did you mean 'out of' or 'under'.
Out of. When it comes to spending, the buck stops with Congress, but
even they are bound by the federal budgeting traditions, which increase
budgets for every department automatically each year, by the cost of
entitlements, etc.
>
>> We
>> already know (and did know, even before Obama started shoveling money
>> overboard) that within 10 years, most of the debt will be "caused by the
>> Dems" because of what's about to happen, demographically, to SS,
>> Medicare, and Medicaid.
>
> Must of the current debt was caused by Republicans. You mean the Dems
> don't get a turn at the trough?
Underline "current". The debt tsunami you can see coming is caused by
entitlements with inadequate funding mechanisms. They aren't GOP
entitlements.
>
> Put another way, do you really think the Dems are going to average
> over a trillion a year in deficits over the next ten years? Because,
> you know, that's what they'd have to do just to become responsible for
> half of it.
Compound interest. It doesn't take anywhere near 10 years, but you and I
probably differ on what % of the current debt is attributable to whom,
simply because there are multiple ways of attribution.
>
>> At which time the Dems will abandon that metric and move on to
>> cherrypick some other metric that benefits them, I have no doubt.
>>
>> A pox on both their houses. But anyone who really thinks one is better
>> than the other doesn't know how to run a spreadsheet.
>
> Agreed. But a government is not a business. It doesn't need a
> profit.
Granted. Breaking even will be fine.
JG
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
reagan tripled the debt, bush one doubled it, bush two doubled it
again, for a grand total of 11 trillion dollars, and counting. the
tarp bailouts were bushs, and may total into the double digit
trillions, this years budget is bushs, the democrats are only
responsible for the stimulus spending. what a lying sack of shit you
are.
Nickname unavailable
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:39:53 -0600, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >kim wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:55:43 -0600, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> kim wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:12:08 -0500, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com>
you notice galt named a few in and out of government, the problem
with the ones in government, is that they voted against something for
the people, then turned around and voted for just about everything
else. the everything else is what has really busted america. i laugh
when i see the galts of the world become deficit hawks all of a sudden.
Nickname unavailable
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:20:26 -0600, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com>
stiglitz, you know, one of those nasty liberal keynes type, warned
america the true costs of iraq might be 3-5 trillion dollars. i bet
all of those fiscal conservatives galt mentioned, voted for the war.
Nickname unavailable
not really, a british member of tony blairs government, came out the
other day, and said the republicans were hell bent on war with iraq,
and did not care if they got the ok or not. not one peep out of the
fiscal hawks. of course what about the morals and ethics of murder for
oil?
Nickname unavailable
> Innews:hf41j...@news2.newsguy.comMichael Coburn
>
> <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > And if war was needed he would have at least attempted a war tax on
> > those with income in excess of $500k and perhaps an even higher tax on
> > incomes in excess of a million or 10 million.
>
> Only "the rich" should have to pay for our foreign adventures?
>
the word here is "ADVENTURES", that enrich a few wealthy, to the
detriment of the many. so yes, if its a "ADVENTURE" you bet your
booties sweetie.
> Really?
>
yes really.
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN b...@iphouse.com
Michael Coburn
> In news:hf41j...@news2.newsguy.com Michael Coburn
> <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> And if war was needed he would have at least attempted a war tax on
>> those with income in excess of $500k and perhaps an even higher tax on
>> incomes in excess of a million or 10 million.
>>
>>
> Only "the rich" should have to pay for our foreign adventures?
>
> Really?
Yes.
That would probably eliminate such adventures.
Michael Coburn
George Bush, the Rovian/Cheney mouth piece, lied his way into a war, used
the Republican Congress to sustain it and then held the troops hostage
for 2 more years while he finished destroying America economically.