|
Post by skyfire on Mar 21, 2009 11:39:08 GMT -5
Apparently sometime yesterday the Congressional Budget Office issued a statement saying that if the budget Obama has proposed goes through, it'll bottom out the national debt; we'll be looking at a national debt of over a trillion dollars and it'll be 10+ years before the nation can get out of it. There was a blurb about it on Fox News and it made the front page of the local newspaper - PDF image - but beyond that I've not seen very much.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 21, 2009 11:54:38 GMT -5
Fox News=more SKY IS FALLING! OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Ironbite-get me a link from MSNBC then we'll talk boyo.
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Mar 21, 2009 12:08:32 GMT -5
There was a blurb about it on Fox News and it made the front page of the local newspaper - PDF image - but beyond that I've not seen very much. First of all, you mean deficit, not debt. Secondly, you clearly haven't seen very much because you haven't looked, which ain't exactly out of character for you. Here's the Washington Post and here's CBS.
|
|
|
Post by headache on Mar 21, 2009 12:17:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Mar 21, 2009 12:38:38 GMT -5
I'd like to see you fix the economy with no deficit spending, seriously.
Let's be honest here, the biggest problem with a massive deficit are interest payments, which at the moment goes to China. So the reason a big deficit is undesirable is because, 10, 20 years from now, the government of our children will be saddled by debt. That's an undesirable outcome, but its still better than spending nothing and, 10 years from now, giving our children no government.
Oh, and I believe the $1.7 trillion is still a smaller proportion of the GDP that it was during the War.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 21, 2009 14:20:25 GMT -5
Gee, isn't most of that money going into the war on terrorism? Did Obama start that?
Somehow he was supposed to walk in the office, wave a magic want and everything would be sunshine and rainbows. Since that didn't happen, he's a complete failure who should be impeached.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 21, 2009 15:03:55 GMT -5
Gee, isn't most of that money going into the war on terrorism? Did Obama start that? Somehow he was supposed to walk in the office, wave a magic want and everything would be sunshine and rainbows. Since that didn't happen, he's a complete failure who should be impeached. Hear hear! Let's lynch him for not living up to our fabricated expectations!
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 21, 2009 19:00:00 GMT -5
I'd like to see you fix the economy with no deficit spending, seriously. Look what happened when the IMF made the Asian Tigers try it! High Interest Rates+ Low Government Spending/No Debt= FAIL!
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 21, 2009 19:08:03 GMT -5
I was only asking if anyone else had caught the news on it; I've been busy of late.
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Mar 21, 2009 19:14:32 GMT -5
Yes I have seen it, notably from The Economist. The Congressional Budget projection is apparently a bit higher than the Administration's Budget Projections. As it stands, I agree, you aren't going to get out of a recession without a bit of deficit spending. However, I want those social programs to stick around, so I'd like to see the debt kept to sustainable levels. Perhaps a strategic downsizing of US military might is in order. Do we really need to exceed the next 14 countries combined in military spending? Wouldn't 10 be enough?
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Mar 21, 2009 20:28:56 GMT -5
Yes I have seen it, notably from The Economist. The Congressional Budget projection is apparently a bit higher than the Administration's Budget Projections. As it stands, I agree, you aren't going to get out of a recession without a bit of deficit spending. However, I want those social programs to stick around, so I'd like to see the debt kept to sustainable levels. Perhaps a strategic downsizing of US military might is in order. Do we really need to exceed the next 14 countries combined in military spending? Wouldn't 10 be enough? Agreed. Unfortunately, it seems that the Dems in Congress are hell-bent on pushing through defense spending pork that the military doesn't even want. In general: does anyone know if these numbers are based on current revenue levels, or projected future ones? Because as the recession ends, government revenues will go up. It might not be as bad as this report makes it seem.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 21, 2009 21:12:03 GMT -5
Yes I have seen it, notably from The Economist. The Congressional Budget projection is apparently a bit higher than the Administration's Budget Projections. As it stands, I agree, you aren't going to get out of a recession without a bit of deficit spending. However, I want those social programs to stick around, so I'd like to see the debt kept to sustainable levels. Perhaps a strategic downsizing of US military might is in order. Do we really need to exceed the next 14 countries combined in military spending? Wouldn't 10 be enough? Considering how flawlessly equipped our soldiers were in Iraq, I have to wonder where the hell all that money is actually going. And why were National Guard units deployed? Where the devil were our regulars? I sense corruption.
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Mar 22, 2009 11:23:00 GMT -5
Yes I have seen it, notably from The Economist. The Congressional Budget projection is apparently a bit higher than the Administration's Budget Projections. As it stands, I agree, you aren't going to get out of a recession without a bit of deficit spending. However, I want those social programs to stick around, so I'd like to see the debt kept to sustainable levels. Perhaps a strategic downsizing of US military might is in order. Do we really need to exceed the next 14 countries combined in military spending? Wouldn't 10 be enough? I often Agreed. Unfortunately, it seems that the Dems in Congress are hell-bent on pushing through defense spending pork that the military doesn't even want. In general: does anyone know if these numbers are based on current revenue levels, or projected future ones? Because as the recession ends, government revenues will go up. It might not be as bad as this report makes it seem. I think the projections assume partial economic recovery beginning in mid-2009, but don't quote me on that. I agree though, both parties are guilty of subsidizing defense contractors in their home states, regardless of whether extensive spending is warranted or not for national defense. For pure purposes of national defense, how much protection does a country protected by two oceans, bordered by two friendly nations really need? That's something to be considered whenever politicians talk about strong national defense. Our dozen or so aircraft carrier task forces and 5000+ nuclear warheads are overkill in the truest sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Mar 22, 2009 22:47:48 GMT -5
Considering how flawlessly equipped our soldiers were in Iraq, I have to wonder where the hell all that money is actually going. And why were National Guard units deployed? Where the devil were our regulars? I sense corruption. No need to sense too much; odds are a large part has been pissed up the wall on cost-plus contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Mar 23, 2009 1:29:51 GMT -5
I agree though, both parties are guilty of subsidizing defense contractors in their home states, regardless of whether extensive spending is warranted or not for national defense. For pure purposes of national defense, how much protection does a country protected by two oceans, bordered by two friendly nations really need? That's something to be considered whenever politicians talk about strong national defense. Our dozen or so aircraft carrier task forces and 5000+ nuclear warheads are overkill in the truest sense of the word. And to think, all that money could be going to education instead of giving the rest of the world the finger.
|
|