$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Lets not forget "Slick Willy" left ol' Wyatt a surplus in excess of 3 trillion buckaroonies. Why were we not concerned about our financial condition until now?

Uh, not, that is not true. See my prior posting.

[billvon 2,435]

>Lets not forget "Slick Willy" left ol' Wyatt a surplus in excess of 3 trillion
>buckaroonies.

$230 billion actually.

[rwieder 0]

Your wrong.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[lawrocket 3]

I see your point. If I plan to spend $4 trillion and only have $3 trillion, I've got to borrow.

But if I have $3.5 trillion and I want to spend $4.4 trillion, increased revenues have outpaced increase in spending.

Could you do me a favor? In the future it may be easier to explain it than just deny.

I feel like I'm in "the Argument."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,435]

>Your wrong.

Apparently so is Clinton then:

=======
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus

From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."
=======

That dirty liar! Under-reporting the surplus just to make himself look . . . bad?

Might want to do the ol' fact check thing there.

[rwieder 0]

Dang BillVon, chill out. I was just breakin' your balls a little. Sorry, i didn't mean for you to stroke out.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[dreamdancer 0]

businesses won't lay workers off (empirical studies have shown this, or if they do the effect is negligible). what they will do is pump money from the banks directly to the lowest paid workers in the economy (remember we're in the fix we are because labour has been undervalued and capital overvalued for too long). this money will then be spent quickly and productively (resulting in the needed boost to the economy we are looking for) - easy

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>spending, then taxes.

Right, that's the idea. Spend during recession, tax during economic good times; the classic Keynsian solution. But I don't think the government should be messing about with the economy to that degree. Set good fiscal policies, set taxes to equal expenditures, and then leave things alone. Ignore people who want to spend more than we take in and ignore people who want to cut taxes below what we are spending. Or, better yet, get them talking and make _them_ work it out.

they're scared of deflation so they've got to get money into the economy - and spent.

Problem: the money isn't being spent! The banks STILL aren't lending it. The public isn't spending money, either. About the only thing people are buying is the rhetoric of "depression" and the like. Which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The place I work, which is financially sound, wants to borrow some money for capital investments and contacted 25 banks within the past month. The response was a universal "We aren't lending". Not "We aren't lending to you", just "We aren't lending"/

[JohnRich 4]

[begin Andy Rooney voice]

Have you ever noticed how all the liberals whine about the cost of the war, which has spent 600 billion dollars over six years to free 50 million people from tyranny?

Yeah, they do that.

But those same liberals are now in favor of spending one trillion dollars in one day, with money we don't even have.

Yeah, that's liberal hypocrisy.

[end Andy Rooney voice]







Begin standard litany of liberal illogic responses.

[philh 0]

It's likely that your numbers are an under estimate because there are many knock on costs of the war that your number does not include. Estimates of the these numbers are not easy, but some are are as high as several trillion dollars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7304300.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

If they are correct it should come as no suprise that the US economy has taken such a dive.


Nor is it clear that Iraqi people are now "free". Sure the official government is elected and a model of freedom compared to Saddam. But does the government really rule Iraq or is the militia? The militia are not so toelrant and its not therefore clear that the Iraqi people are free. I have just read the London times reporter form Iraq's new book detailing life there. Many people fear for their lives from religious militia who have even killed vegetable sellers for arranging their products in a sexually provocative way. Certianly the situation has improved but to say there is freedom in Iraq is premature.

Lets see what happens when US troops pull out, will a model Western democracy survive or will we have replaced a brutal dictator with lots of brutal militia?

[TomAiello 25]

Quite honestly, the best reason to oppose foreign adventures of the type the US is now engaged in is that they are extremely expensive, and we don't have the money to spend on them.

What they're spending the money on is a lot less important to me than the fact that my kids are going to end up having to pay off the loan--long after the current decision makers are retired.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

[begin Andy Rooney voice]

Have you ever noticed how all the liberals whine about the cost of the war, which has spent 600 billion dollars over six years to free 50 million people from tyranny?

Yeah, they do that.

But those same liberals are now in favor of spending one trillion dollars in one day, with money we don't even have.

Yeah, that's liberal hypocrisy.

[end Andy Rooney voice]







Begin standard litany of liberal illogic responses.

50 million?
Iraq population (according to CIA Fact Book) = 28,221,180

Cost of war will be way over $1T when all the bills are paid.

It remains to be seen how free of tyranny they will be.

Not even Obama spent $1T in one day.

Misrepresenting facts does not enhance your credibility.

[billvon 2,435]

>Not even Obama spent $1T in one day.

sssshhhh, he's on a roll

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

to free 50 million people from tyranny?

and kill one million of them.

(and bankrupt the empire, while iran laughs)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quite honestly, the best reason to oppose foreign adventures of the type the US is now engaged in is that they are extremely expensive, and we don't have the money to spend on them.

So we can't afford the $600 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then how come we can afford a $1,000 billion bailout package?

I don't get it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

50 million? Iraq population (according to CIA Fact Book) = 28,221,180
Misrepresenting facts does not enhance your credibility.

Very good sloggo. Now go look up Afghanistan. Then add the two numbers together.
If you need help, let me know.

Misrepresenting JohnRich does not enhance your credibility.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

50 million? Iraq population (according to CIA Fact Book) = 28,221,180
Misrepresenting facts does not enhance your credibility.

Very good sloggo. Now go look up Afghanistan. Then add the two numbers together.
If you need help, let me know.

Misrepresenting JohnRich does not enhance your credibility.

And poor writing doesn't help the discussion, John. You said 50M in "the war." These are separate affairs. Afghanistan has been more about fighting the Taliban than installing a wonderful democracy.

There is considerably more support, even after the fact, for the actions there. But Iraq was never about the same reasons, or in hindsight, particularly good reasons, and the mission beyond ousting Hussein has not been a great success.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quite honestly, the best reason to oppose foreign adventures of the type the US is now engaged in is that they are extremely expensive, and we don't have the money to spend on them.

So we can't afford the $600 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then how come we can afford a $1,000 billion bailout package?

I don't get it.

You could try to think a little harder about who the beneficiaries are.

On the whole I prefer my tax dollars to go to help Americans and the Us economy. Feel free to send as much of your money overseas as you wish.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>what do you do with the unwanted labour while the system gets
>back into whack?

The real answer - they make do, as they always do.

The answer you want - all the greedy capitalists who got big bonuses from AIG hope they starve to death while they laugh and smoke cigars.

they're very, very, very naughty bankers

Quote

Whether quantitative easing is funded through printing money or by mopping up and then lending out existing money which would otherwise sit idly within the banking system, the approach rests on the idea that the banking system itself is unable to pump money around the economy. Either you take money away from the banking system to give to others (the Fed's Robin Hood approach) or, instead, you leave the existing money within the banking system and create some more to give to others (the Bank of England's alchemist approach). The Fed's approach – so far at least – redistributes existing money while the Bank's approach creates new money.

I suspect those who worry about hyperinflation think the Bank's approach is a lot more dangerous than the Fed's. They'd be wrong. Excess inflation can be created either by printing more money (an increase in the money supply) or by making sure the existing stock of money is spent more frequently (an increase in the velocity of money). Either way, there should be upward pressure on output and prices. When, though, an economy is operating well below its full employment potential, it is more likely that quantitative easing, under any guise, will have an impact on output alone and not prices.

The US economy, for example, has already experienced both a huge increase in unemployment and an extraordinary drop in capacity utilisation which, in manufacturing, is now at a new post-war low. Getting money to slosh around the economy more readily should, in these circumstances, help to lift activity and spirits without threatening inflation. Indeed, with activity so depressed at the moment, the important thing is not to worry about inflation but, instead, to ward off the danger of deflation. Now that interest rates so low and debt levels so high, deflation is, surely, the biggest single economic threat facing our nations. Already, an absence of company pricing power is leading to collapsing profits and surging unemployment. Worse may be to come.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/stephen-king/stephen-king-experiments-that-could-blow-us-up-1651842.html

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

So we can't afford the $600 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then how come we can afford a $1,000 billion bailout package?

We can't.

I'm not in favor of the massive spending going on in Washington these days.

The fact that they're running up another (even bigger) tab for our kids doesn't mean that we should all just run out and spend as much money as we (don't) have.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

So we can't afford the $600 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then how come we can afford a $1,000 billion bailout package?
I don't get it.

You could try to think a little harder about who the beneficiaries are.
On the whole I prefer my tax dollars to go to help Americans and the Us economy.

Speaking of "thinking"...

Then according to your argument, above, it's not that we can't afford it, but rather it's a question of who's getting the money. So what you're saying is that it's okay to give money to ourselves, but not to spend it on others. In other words, we can afford it as long as we give ourselves all the pie.

That's an entirely different argument, and a very greedy, selfish one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

So we can't afford the $600 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then how come we can afford a $1,000 billion bailout package?

We can't.
I'm not in favor of the massive spending going on in Washington these days.
The fact that they're running up another (even bigger) tab for our kids doesn't mean that we should all just run out and spend as much money as we (don't) have.

Very good. I hope Sloggo is paying attention. You've actually made an argument that is consistent and makes sense. If only we had more people capable of doing this.

Those that say we can't afford the lesser amount for the war, but can afford a greater amount for ourselves, are illogical.

Your answer is the correct one, which nobody else wants to admit. Thank you, Tom.

[billvon 2,435]

>So we can't afford the $600 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
>Then how come we can afford a $1,000 billion bailout package?

We can "afford" both the same way we can "afford" a new big screen TV by getting a new credit card. That does not mean that either expenditure is a good idea.

[philh 0]

Perhaps its not clear which is likely to give a better return on ones investment. $1 trillion on the US economy or between $650blm- $3trln on the Iraq war (depedning on which estimate you read). Persoanlly if it were my money Id go with the US economy, but thats just me.

By the way you you are claiming a combined Iraq and Afghan populaiton "freed" but are you also using combined estimated budget ? I dont think so.
Also if the US government buys a toxic asset eg a securitised debt obligation backed by domestic mortgages, the money is not neccesarily gone.
Thats only true if all the assets behind the security are worth 0.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Those that say we can't afford the lesser amount for the war, but can afford a greater amount for ourselves, are illogical.

not if it was the wars that bankrupted you in the first place

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding