Doesn't this just give you the warm and fuzzies all over?

[Perchoutofwater]

How did we get here, and why are we piling more on?

[dmarc117]

[i_am_the_swammi]

Ouch.

 

Bush's team really did a number (the year the article is using as a base year).

 

The 12% rise in red ink in 2008 stems from an explosion of federal borrowing during the recession, plus an aging population driving up the costs of Medicare and Social Security.

 

That's the biggest leap in the long-term burden on taxpayers since a Medicare prescription drug benefit was added in 2003.

 

The latest increase raises federal obligations to a record $546,668 per household in 2008, according to the USA TODAY analysis. That's quadruple what the average U.S. household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt combined.

[borge007]

Ouch.

 

Bush's team really did a number (the year the article is using as a base year).

 

The 12% rise in red ink in 2008 stems from an explosion of federal borrowing during the recession, plus an aging population driving up the costs of Medicare and Social Security.

 

That's the biggest leap in the long-term burden on taxpayers since a Medicare prescription drug benefit was added in 2003.

 

The latest increase raises federal obligations to a record $546,668 per household in 2008, according to the USA TODAY analysis. That's quadruple what the average U.S. household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt combined.

 

Of course-the righties will blame the democrat majority in Congress or?!?

[Perchoutofwater]

Ouch.

 

Bush's team really did a number (the year the article is using as a base year).

 

The 12% rise in red ink in 2008 stems from an explosion of federal borrowing during the recession, plus an aging population driving up the costs of Medicare and Social Security.

 

That's the biggest leap in the long-term burden on taxpayers since a Medicare prescription drug benefit was added in 2003.

 

The latest increase raises federal obligations to a record $546,668 per household in 2008, according to the USA TODAY analysis. That's quadruple what the average U.S. household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt combined.

 

Any idea why the budget exploded in 2008? Could it be that 2008 is the first budget year that was written by a Democrat majority in the both the house and senate? Then look at the projected budget deficits that we are going to get under the same congress with a Democrat as president. Don't get me wrong, Bush deserves some blame, but if you think it is all him then you are wearing blinders. His deficit spending peaked in 2004 after the tech bubble bursting, 9/11 and the mobilization of the war effort. After 2004 his tax cuts were starting to take affect, and his deficits were starting to shrink until 2008 which was the budget written and voted on by the Dem majorities in congress. Bush should have had the balls to veto the spending, but he didn't, and I've faulted him for that on numerous occasions. Still, how much of that debt is on Bush's shoulders? This is a problem with those on both sides of the isle, and both sides should be critiqued.

[wiegie]

Any idea why the budget exploded in 2008?

uh, perhaps because the financial system experienced a meltdown of a severity only rivaled by what happened in the Great Depression? :oldrolleyes:

[Perchoutofwater]

uh, perhaps because the financial system experienced a meltdown of a severity only rivaled by what happened in the Great Depression? :oldrolleyes:

 

Well that is what Obama and his sack swingers are trying to get us to believe so that they can push as many social programs down our throats as FDR did. I really like all the debt associated with FDR's programs and the ones installed later under LBJ, don't you. I just love long term debt for programs that once started are almost impossible to get rid of. Hey so what if we have to twist the arms of a few judges along the way to try to say what we are doing was what the founding fathers intended. Never wast a good crisis.

[wiegie]

Well that is what Obama and his sack swingers are trying to get us to believe

lol--muck and dmarc are Obama sack swingers

[dmarc117]

lol--muck and dmarc are Obama sack swingers

 

lol....zip it pole smoker!!

[Perchoutofwater]

lol--muck and dmarc are Obama sack swingers

 

No, I was actually referring to you. While muck and dmarc both show a great deal of concern about the economy (concern I happen to share) I haven't heard either of them actually compare what we are going through now with the great depression. All of those comparisons are made by guys like you who seem to like the idea of increasing the size of government.

[wiegie]

No, I was actually referring to you. While muck and dmarc both show a great deal of concern about the economy (concern I happen to share) I haven't heard either of them actually compare what we are going through now with the great depression. All of those comparisons are made by guys like you who have economics PhDs with specialties in financial history.

fixed for accuracy

[bushwacked]

[bushwacked]

fixed for accuracy

 

Who needs expurt opinion when we have Fox News and AM radio?

[Perchoutofwater]

fixed for accuracy

 

Don't you mean paid in some way buy the government and have a vested interest in more government spending, particularly in "higher" education? I'm not down playing the problems with the economy, but is spending more the answer? Isn't that part of what got us here to begin with? What was unemployment rate during the Great Depression vs now? The mess we are in now was not caused by not enough spending, but irrational spending on both the part of the citizens and the government, and you seem to want to continue that.

[wiegie]

Don't you mean paid in some way buy the government and have a vested interest in more government spending, particularly in "higher" education?

ok, I confess, you got me

 

All this time I have been saying that the financial system is really messed up specifically because I have an ulterior motive of getting the government to spend more money in the hope that I will get a raise.

 

[Perchoutofwater]

ok, I confess, you got me

 

All this time I have been saying that the financial system is really messed up specifically because I have an ulterior motive of getting the government to spend more money in the hope that I will get a raise.

 

 

Just saying I feel muck and his real world experience, his lack of partisanship, and the fact that he isn't paid in part by the government is a more reliable resource.

 

It just doesn't make sense how you can defend this type of spending yet in the same breath blame Bush.

[tbimm]

Don't you mean paid in some way buy the government and have a vested interest in more government spending, particularly in "higher" education? I'm not down playing the problems with the economy, but is spending more the answer? Isn't that part of what got us here to begin with? What was unemployment rate during the Great Depression vs now? The mess we are in now was not caused by not enough spending, but irrational spending on both the part of the citizens and the government, and you seem to want to continue that.

Sometimes it is good to know when you have been beaten. wiegie smoked you bad on this one.

[Azazello1313]

Any idea why the budget exploded in 2008?

 

uh, perhaps because the financial system experienced a meltdown of a severity only rivaled by what happened in the Great Depression? :oldrolleyes:

 

uhh, wasn't the spending for FY2008 (10/07 through 9/08) authorized in 2007? and weren't the vast majority of tax receipts over that time frame based on 2007 tax returns and early calendar 2008 tax estimates? that all pre-dates the meltdown, does it not?

 

the deficit for FY 2008 went way up primarily because spending outlays for that budget went up 9.1% over the budget for 2007.

 

the economic crisis explains why the FY2009 deficit is going to be over $2 trillion, but it doesn't really provide much of an explanation for the big jump in the deficit from 2007 to 2008.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Azazello1313

[Savage Beatings]

Screw all you pinko Commies! Go back to China/Russia/Cuba! And take Hussein in the membrane with you!

 

[i_am_the_swammi]

Who needs expurt opinion when we have Fox News and AM radio?

 

I tuned into Hannity last night....first time I ever watched the show, since network TV is in re-runs.

 

Good laugh.

[wiegie]

the economic crisis explains why the FY2009 deficit is going to be over $2 trillion, but it doesn't really provide much of an explanation for the big jump in the deficit from 2007 to 2008.

Here is what the CBO has to say:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9912/11-2008-MBR.pdf

Excluding the effects of timing shifts, defense spending increased by 11.6 percent in 2008, the highest rate of growth since 2004 but below the 14.5 percent average growth experienced in 2002 and 2003 after the onset of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. CBO estimates that almost one-fourth of the military’s 2008 outlays were for war-related costs. As a share of GDP, defense spending increased from 2.9 percent in 2001 to 4.2 percent in 2008. Outlays for the largest entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—rose by 5.4 percent in 2008, slightly below the 6.5 percent annual gains averaged over the 2003-2007 period. Medicare and Medicaid grew in relation to the economy, accounting for 4.2 percent of GDP in 2008 compared with 3.8 percent in 2003. Social Security outlays increased slightly to 4.3 percent of GDP from an average of 4.2 percent for the previous five years.

 

“Other programs” accounted for almost half of the increase in outlays in 2008, rising by $114 billion, or 14 percent, on an adjusted basis. Most of that growth stems from the recent economic slowdown, reflecting stimulus rebates paid to individuals whose rebates exceeded their income taxes ($32 billion); payments to cover insured deposits at failed financial institutions (up $23 billion, which should be offset by future proceeds from asset sales and insurance premiums); outlays for unemployment benefits (up $11 billion); and spending for food and nutrition programs (up $6 billion).

So, I will admit that my answer was not completely correct--it seems that a very large portion of the increase in the deficit had to do with a jump in military spending. I guess we can blame that on the Democrat Congress if you want to.

Edited May 29, 2009 by wiegie

[Perchoutofwater]

Here is what the CBO has to say:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9912/11-2008-MBR.pdf

 

So, I will admit that my answer was not completely correct--it seems that a very large portion of the increase in the deficit had to do with a jump in military spending. I guess we can blame that on the Democrat Congress if you want to.

 

So, CBO is ok for looking at Bush, but in accurate when projecting Obama's budget deficits which dwarf all of Bush's including 2008. The Wall Street Journal is a bad source, but NY Times is ok. Fox News is bad, but MSNBC is ok. Could someone please give me a ling of acceptable sources, or does the source really not matter, so long as that particular article or quote props up liberal ideology?

[Azazello1313]

“Other programs” accounted for almost half of the increase in outlays in 2008, rising by $114 billion, or 14 percent, on an adjusted basis. Most of that growth stems from the recent economic slowdown, reflecting stimulus rebates paid to individuals whose rebates exceeded their income taxes ($32 billion); payments to cover insured deposits at failed financial institutions (up $23 billion, which should be offset by future proceeds from asset sales and insurance premiums); outlays for unemployment benefits (up $11 billion); and spending for food and nutrition programs (up $6 billion).

So, I will admit that my answer was not completely correct--it seems that a very large portion of the increase in the deficit had to do with a jump in military spending. I guess we can blame that on the Democrat Congress if you want to.

 

 

those things add up to $72 billion. outlays went up $250 billion from 2007 to 2008. $72 billion is less than 30% of $250 billion. so, "most" of "almost half" of the increase in outlays is largely attributable to a "slowdown". yeah, the slowdown eventually turned into "a meltdown of a severity only rivaled by what happened in the Great Depression", but using that language in connection with FY08 outlays is disingenuous.

 

"not completely correct" puts it mildly.