How the U.S. Got $14 Trillion in Debt and Who Are the Creditors

[celticwar17]

Yea... those billions of dollars they have sucked to themselves in pork is some real "spending reductions".... ****ing hypocrites is what the Tea Party is... and crazy at that.

Please elaborate.

 

[celticwar17]

Yea... those billions of dollars they have sucked to themselves in pork is some real "spending reductions".... ****ing hypocrites is what the Tea Party is... and crazy at that.

Do you deny that the Tea Party is the reason for bringing up the Deficit debate on a large scale?

Do you deny that the last compromised bill that just passed the house would have contained near the amount of cuts if the Tea Party was not there?

 

[celticwar17]

LOL and you trust the GOP? They controlled all levels of government for 6 years, and did NOTHING to cut spending. In fact it increased and the debt load exploded. On top of that, they not only continued but expanded "no-bid" contracts in the military which cost the American tax payer billions. But back to my original point... 2001 to 2007... GOP was in full control of the US.. and what cost cutting was actually done? What reforms were actually put in place that mattered a damn? NONE. So dont come and blame the Dems when your own side is even worse at "fixing" things.

Why do people pretend to be completely oblivious to recent politics?

I don't claim to be a Political Scientist, but if a Party dealt with running the country the exact same way no matter what is going on in the country, then that Party would indeed be absolutely retarded. The party that seems to be unchanged in a state of crisis is the one you should truly be concerned with... and the democrats and Obama have showed me NOTHING that they are able to change their high spending agendas in recent politics.. some want to even take away the debt ceiling and raise Taxes so they could spend even MORE!

What, in recent politics, have the democrats done to convince me they are serious about reduction in spending and government? In comparison to the republicans?

 

[Kal'Stang]

I like this CBO analysis that chronicles the annual debt since our balanced budget in 2000. For Fiscal 2010, contributors to the deficit are:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 and 2003 - $190 Billion deficit in 2010.
Bush - Lost income tax due to great recession - $700 Billion
Bush - Interest on the debt increases - 290 Billion (on the half trillion in debt the repubs ran up in 8 years)


Obama Stimulus reduced taxes - $180 Billion deficit in 2010
Obama Stimulus spending - $115 Billion

Bush and Obama, discretionary - $550 Billion (Wars in Iraq and Afghan., plus stimulus bill, about 1/2 to each) Bush was running 300 billion annually before Obama was elected.

That gives Bush $1.2 trillion of responsibility for last years deficit, plus half of the discretionary (300 billion more), for a total of 1.5 trillion of deficit responsibility.

That gives Obama $300 billion of direct responsibility for last years deficit, plus half of the discretionary (300 billion more), for a total of 600 billion of deficit responsibility.

(those are the big numbers, there is some noise numbers in there, but they don't amount to much)

Bush is responsible for 75% of last years deficit, Obama for 25% of last years deficit.

And what you totally ignore here is that it took Bush 8 years to do what he did. Where as Obama has done his bit in 2 years. So lets figure this out shall we?

Assuming that Obama keeps up the way he's been going for the rest of this term plus another 4 years (this way it equals out to Bush's years in office) that would put Obama at 2.4 trillion total in the course of 8 years....so...what was your point again? And there is no reason to think that he will actually stop or slow down his spending spree. IE I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[sangha]

He made the best decision possible with what intel he had... intel from which was highly guaranteed as truthful from The EU.

It's really dishonest to actually think you know everything about the motivation of all the TOP SECRET decisions in the government.

Not true. The evidence shows that the govt, and officials high up in the bush* admin, deliberately twisted some evidence, and knew that other evidence was false.

 

[celticwar17]

not true. The evidence shows that the govt, and officials high up in the bush* admin, deliberately twisted some evidence, and knew that other evidence was false.

false........

 

[sangha]

Ignore what facts? That republicans have spent a lot of government money? Who is ignoring that?
They wouldn't dare doing that now or their only stance would go directly down the toilet.

You are ignoring the facts, or at least trying to keep them out of the discussion. Here's what you said:

Okay?!?! I don't care what either party has done... i just care about what we need to do now!

I trust the Democrats far less, because they have demonstrated no desire in reducing big government and spending. There are so many random funded organizations, governmenyly dependant, and Unions that bark up their A** if they act in any other way... that's where the majority of their voter base comes from.

The Tea Party has a pretty damn good record so far with serious spending reductions. Hey if you are all about reduction in spending you should Join :2razz:

The repubs have demonstrated no desire to reduce govt or spending either. They only SAY they are for it, but their actions prove otherwise. And it was a dem president who cut the size of govt, and balanced the budget.

And the TP is why the repubs ran away from Obamas proposal to cut 4T in spending. That is not a "good job"

 

[sangha]

And also.... "What they've always done"...
Have you been paying attention at all to recent politics?
Republicans across the board are passing and voting for massive reductions in spending.

Because Obama was pushing for them. They could have had 4T in spending cuts, but they weren't willing to go that far. Obviously, they are not as strong in their fervor to cut spending as the big govt liberal, Barack Obama

 

[AdamT]

The only thing you guys ever bring up is past spending in the bush years... you got to realize, i don't give a crap about the GOP i don't have any loyalties. I am only concerned with reduced spending and government NOW!!! AND RIGHT NOW, they are showing the most trustworthy response to cuts in spending and government, THIS is the CURRENT attitude of the republican party, that was NOT the attitude during the Bush years, maybe a couple of wars had something to do with it?... I expected more from someone who calls themselves "centrist" to at least not be so obviously Left Wing republican Damning.

Alright... tell me... where in this thread did i blame only the Dems? All i commented about was their CURRENT attitude and how Obama continued to spend after the spending spree after the Bush's presidency in the war, Why didn't Obama stop the spending and crack down on the deficit and the war?

You know Obama is continuing the war in Afghanistan and has another one in Libya.

please... answer me directly, im not in the mood for games.

It would be a huge mistake to reduce spending RIGHT NOW. Pushing the economy back into recession is NOT going to lower deficits. It will have the exact opposite effect. What we should be doing is painfully obvious. We should be stimulating the economy NOW, for the short term, and doing serious cuts and revenue hikes in the mid/long term.

 

[sangha]

The only thing you guys ever bring up is past spending in the bush years... you got to realize, i don't give a crap about the GOP i don't have any loyalties.

And yet, you defend these republicans you don't give a crap about

I am only concerned with reduced spending and government NOW!!! AND RIGHT NOW, they are showing the most trustworthy response to cuts in spending and government, THIS is the CURRENT attitude of the republican party, that was NOT the attitude during the Bush years, maybe a couple of wars had something to do with it?... I expected more from someone who calls themselves "centrist" to at least not be so obviously Left Wing republican Damning.

The TP hasn't cut a penny of spending. All they did was accept a promise to cut spending in the future from a bunch of politicians.

Alright... tell me... where in this thread did i blame only the Dems? All i commented about was their CURRENT attitude and how Obama continued to spend after the spending spree after the Bush's presidency in the war, Why didn't Obama stop the spending and crack down on the deficit and the war?

When you blame Obama for the spending while ignoring the role the repubs played in the spending spree, you are defending the repubs by ommission and blaming it all on the dems.

You know Obama is continuing the war in Afghanistan and has another one in Libya.

I don't support the Libyan venture, and I hold him responsible for that, but at least he puts his wars on the budget. And the only reason we're in Afgh is because bush* dropped the ball there. At least Obama got OBL dead, and not alive.

 

[sangha]

Please elaborate.

The stimulus bill. Some of the TP caucus members took stim money and bragged about how they fought for their communities

 

[sangha]

And what you totally ignore here is that it took Bush 8 years to do what he did. Where as Obama has done his bit in 2 years. So lets figure this out shall we?

Assuming that Obama keeps up the way he's been going for the rest of this term plus another 4 years (this way it equals out to Bush's years in office) that would put Obama at 2.4 trillion total in the course of 8 years....so...what was your point again? And there is no reason to think that he will actually stop or slow down his spending spree. IE I'll believe it when I see it.

I have already addressed the fallacy of blaming a president for all the spending that occurs as soon as he takes office. You might want to read those posts of mine.

 

[Neomalthusian]

You can repeat it as often as you like, but it doesn't get more true by repetition. If spending exceeds revenue you have three choices -- not one. You can cut spending, you can raise more revenue, or, most sensibly, you can do some of each.

Until or unless more revenue is raised, spending must drop to align with what you're getting. Generally you have more control over an expenditure than you do over revenue.

 

[AdamT]

Until or unless more revenue is raised, spending must drop to align with what you're getting. Generally you have more control over an expenditure than you do over revenue.

That might generally be the case, but in this particular case, most of our spending is nondiscretionary.

 

[Neomalthusian]

That might generally be the case, but in this particular case, most of our spending is nondiscretionary.

Why don't we just call all of it non-discretionary and then there will never again be any question about whether we can or should cut spending?

 

[sangha]

Why don't we just call all of it non-discretionary

Because some people are honest

 

[AdamT]

Why don't we just call all of it non-discretionary and then there will never again be any question about whether we can or should cut spending?

To do that would be to ignore the very real distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary spending.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I have already addressed the fallacy of blaming a president for all the spending that occurs as soon as he takes office. You might want to read those posts of mine.

And yet the person that I responded to did that very thing. Funny that.

 

[Donc]

The only spending that I can see now that makes any kind of sense, is closing military bases in countries that that are perfectly capable of defending themselves, most of those are in Europe.

Might be a good idea to take a second look at Iraq, as well as speed up the withdrawal from our longest war as well.

 

[Neomalthusian]

To do that would be to ignore the very real distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary spending.

Refusing to acknowledge the need to cut non-discretionary spending ignores the very reality that shaving down discretionary expenditures still leaves massive deficits.

The 2011 discretionary portions of the following budgets (with percentages being of the total outlays of each budget)

Defense: $734 Billion (99.3%)
Overseas Contingency Ops: $164 Billion (100%)
Education: $101 Billion (55%+)
Health & Human Services: $91.4 Billion (10%)
Veteran Affairs $57 Billion (40%)
Dept. of State: $56 Billion (~100%)
Housing/Urban Development: $50 Billion (81%)
Homeland Security, Discretionary: $48 Billion (100%)
Energy: $28 Billion (~100%)
Justice: $26.7 Billion (80%)
Agriculture: $25.7 Billion (21%)
NASA: $19.5 Billion (100%)
Labor: $14.5 Billion (10%)
Treasury: $14.5 Billion (10%)
Interior: $14 Billion (~100%)
Transportation: $14 Billion (40%)
Social Security: $12.5 Billion (<1%)
EPA: $11 Billion (100%)
Commerce: $9 Billion (~100%)
Small Business: $1 Billion
SOURCE

Aggregating these discretionary expenses I get about $1.47 Trillion, or 92% of the deficit. All we have to do is completely and immediately stop funding the entire DoD, the wars, DHS, Dept. of State, Commerce, Science space and technology and Dept. of Interior; 80% cuts to Justice and HUD; and 40-60% cuts to Education, Transportation and Veteran Affairs. But then of course liberals will be lamenting over all the newly unemployed federal workers. And don't forget the neglected veterans...

The only discretionary portions of Medicare and Social Security are administrative--about 1% of the total. The only discretionary welfare programs are Section 8, WIC, and a few other relatively tiny programs. The only discretionary non-Medicare health related programs are the NIH, Indian Health, substance abuse and mental health, the FDA, and other tiny programs. Obviously the $250 Billion of net interest is 100% mandatory.

What does it mean when it's impossible to balance your budget year after year? When you notice yourself, in accelerating fashion, taking on new debt just to pay interest on old debts? When you HAVE TO cut spending but "can't?" It means rethinking even the expenditures once considered "mandatory."

 

[AdamT]

Refusing to acknowledge the need to cut non-discretionary spending ignores the very reality that shaving down discretionary expenditures still leaves massive deficits.

I have always acknowledged that we need to cut non-discretionary spending. My point was simply that Obama can't do it at the drop of the hat; that's why they call it non-discretionary.

 

[Diving Mullah]

That leaves 0% of the responsibility to Congress, which is odd.



1) So much for "single greatest" contributor. You named a whole slew of things.

2) Spending in excess of revenue creates debt. The failure to adjust expenditures to actual revenues. It doesn't matter WHAT happens to revenue, it's the act of spending in excess of whatever revenue that creates debt. How many ways do liberals need to be told this before they wrap their minds around it?

Like Starting Two wars without Raising Taxes.

However the right wing arguments has been that cutting taxes increases the Revenue, which clearly has been and never was the case. Now , Why are we holding on to this moronic dogma is beyond me?

Diving Mullah

 

[Neomalthusian]

Like Starting Two wars without Raising Taxes.

Yes, this identifies a particularly Republican example of spending irrespective of revenue.

However the right wing arguments has been that cutting taxes increases the Revenue, which clearly has been and never was the case. Now , Why are we holding on to this moronic dogma is beyond me?

Causation aside, there has been a correlation, at least when GDP is factored in.

 

[imagep]

It would be a huge mistake to reduce spending RIGHT NOW. Pushing the economy back into recession is NOT going to lower deficits. It will have the exact opposite effect. What we should be doing is painfully obvious. We should be stimulating the economy NOW, for the short term, and doing serious cuts and revenue hikes in the mid/long term.

Yup. Thats exactly correct. I do very much agree with many democrats and most republicans that we need a much smaller government, but now is just not the right time. We should have been working on that during the boom years, not during the bust years.

We are likely to continue this great recession as least as long as the Great Depression, it it could get as bad or even worse than the Great Depression before it's over with. I figure that we won't see much change in our leadership or government policy until the election. The best that I can expect for our economy is that it will remain about like it is not, but I fear it will get worse. Either way, the trend is to blaim government overspending and "high" taxes and the deficit and the debt, and I don't see that trend changing for a long time. Both houses of congress and the presidency our bound to turn over the republicans in the next elections. Republicans will claim that they have a mandate for slashing government spending and tax rates on the rich, and if our economy hasn't already double dipped, it will certainly dive then. They will cut taxes for the rich, and when our budget deficit and economy gets worse, they will claim that they didn't cut taxes enough so they will do it again. Then when the economy doesn't improve and when they discover that the deficit has continued to grow, they will increase taxes on the poor and middleclass, and when things don't improve, they will do it again, maybe to the point that our tax system becomes regressive, and things will continue to get worse.

Obviously by the end of that presidential term, the public will have realized that low taxes on the rich and slashed government isn't wasn't the answer. I just hope that the country isn't in ruins by then.

Something will then change. Who the heck knows what though. Maybe we will just pass the ball back over to democrats for more failed democratic leadership. Maybe we will have a revolution of some sort, declare capitalism a "failed experiment" and wind up a communist country. I'm not very enthusiastic for any of those options.

Most likely, we will just print the heck out of some money, distribute part of it to the poor (back on the welfare system) and give the rest to China in repayment of our debt, we will then beg China to use it to purchase US goods (at which point they will probably just purchase US real estate and businesses since they will all be available at a bargain price), and become a puppet state of China. At that point, there will be no middle class in the US and few rich Americans, we will all be poor.

 

[sangha]

Refusing to acknowledge the need to cut non-discretionary spending ignores the very reality that shaving down discretionary expenditures still leaves massive deficits.

Refusing to acknowledge the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary spending is ignoring reality.