Record-Breaking Deficit. 490.. Until you're honest.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Record-Breaking Deficit. 490.. Until you're honest.

Post by SirNitram »

Link
WASHINGTON — The White House has increased its estimate for next year's deficit to nearly $490 billion, a record figure that will saddle the next president with deepening budget problems in his first year in office, a report due out Monday shows.

The projected deficit for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 is being driven higher by the continuing economic slowdown and larger-than-anticipated costs of the two-year, $168 billion fiscal stimulus package passed by Congress, said two senior administration officials with direct knowledge of the report. In February, President Bush predicted the 2009 deficit would be $407 billion.

The budget update shows this year's deficit headed under $400 billion, at least $10 billion less than projected, according to the two officials. That's partly because tax revenue held up reasonably well despite the weaker economy.

The rising deficit for 2009 marks a sharp turnaround for Bush's fiscal legacy. He inherited a $128 billion surplus when he came into office in 2001. It soon turned to red ink because of a recession, the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terrorism.

Curbing the deficit will fall to Bush's successor and the next Congress following a time when taxes were cut and major spending initiatives were undertaken, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, transportation projects, farm subsidies, Medicare prescription drug coverage and a recently passed expansion of veterans' education benefits.

The actual 2009 deficit could climb still higher because the new projection does not reflect full funding for the wars. In addition, a worsening economy could add to the red ink by reducing tax revenue and increasing safety-net payments, such as jobless benefits and food stamps.

Both presidential candidates have proposed tax cuts that could further swell the deficit. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that Republican John McCain's cuts would cost $4.2 trillion and Democrat Barack Obama's $2.8 trillion over 10 years. Neither candidate has specified major spending cuts he would make to reduce the deficit.

"The picture's looking pretty dark out there," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. He credited Bush's tax cuts with creating six years of economic growth but "on the spending side, their record is not good."

White House budget director Jim Nussle said that despite the surplus Bush started with, he faced a deficit in defense, intelligence and homeland security that had to be bolstered after 9/11.

"This is not just a mathematical exercise," he said in an interview with USA TODAY. Nussle said an economic recovery and a renewed effort by Congress to control spending could rein in the deficit.

Bush proposed in recent years to slow the growth of spending in programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those efforts were ignored by Congress — most recently last week, when the House voted to sidestep a provision of the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law that would have required lower Medicare spending.

The biggest budget deficit recorded to date was $413 billion in 2004. In today's dollars, that would be about $478 billion. As a share of the economy, the 2009 deficit would be 3% to 4%, below the post-World War II record of 6% set in 1983.
That's the White House's version. 490. I mean, it only breaks the 2004 record. It could be worse.

And it is.

According to ABC, this omits the war, medicare costs, unemployment costs, the housing bill... The real number is guesstimated at 600Billion this year. But hey, it's just 'creative accounting'. Those Enron guys did it, and it didn't hurt anyone, right?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
CaptainZoidberg
Padawan Learner
Posts: 497
Joined: 2008-05-24 12:05pm
Location: Worcester Polytechnic
Contact:

Post by CaptainZoidberg »

The irony of this is just painful. Are the Republicans giving up the "Fiscal Conservatism" thing now, or what?
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Re: Record-Breaking Deficit. 490.. Until you're honest.

Post by Master of Ossus »

SirNitram wrote:Link

According to ABC, this omits the war, medicare costs, unemployment costs, the housing bill... The real number is guesstimated at 600Billion this year. But hey, it's just 'creative accounting'. Those Enron guys did it, and it didn't hurt anyone, right?
How do those things cost only $110 billion?

But, realistically, all of the other budgets have omitted similar things. The "surplus," for instance, didn't include huge Social Security withdrawals and things like that.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: Record-Breaking Deficit. 490.. Until you're honest.

Post by SirNitram »

Master of Ossus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Link

According to ABC, this omits the war, medicare costs, unemployment costs, the housing bill... The real number is guesstimated at 600Billion this year. But hey, it's just 'creative accounting'. Those Enron guys did it, and it didn't hurt anyone, right?
How do those things cost only $110 billion?

But, realistically, all of the other budgets have omitted similar things. The "surplus," for instance, didn't include huge Social Security withdrawals and things like that.
I'm going by ABC's estimate. Frankly, it's insane to think it's not edging up to the T mark. You can't fund a war with privateers and the moneypit of reconstruction while cutting taxes and bailing out huge investment firms.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Re: Record-Breaking Deficit. 490.. Until you're honest.

Post by Straha »

SirNitram wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Link

According to ABC, this omits the war, medicare costs, unemployment costs, the housing bill... The real number is guesstimated at 600Billion this year. But hey, it's just 'creative accounting'. Those Enron guys did it, and it didn't hurt anyone, right?
How do those things cost only $110 billion?

But, realistically, all of the other budgets have omitted similar things. The "surplus," for instance, didn't include huge Social Security withdrawals and things like that.
I'm going by ABC's estimate. Frankly, it's insane to think it's not edging up to the T mark. You can't fund a war with privateers and the moneypit of reconstruction while cutting taxes and bailing out huge investment firms.
Actually, using responsible accounting methods, it's already well in the Trillions. The government uses a year by method of accounting called "cash accounting", wherein it counts the amount of money that's come in during the fiscal year, subtracts the money it has to spend and then the sum total is the surplus or deficit. Problem is that this sort of accounting isn't practiced by any business because it'll get them audited and shut down by the IRS right away. Think it through and it becomes obvious why, to use an example say a company has a yearly profit of $5,000,000. It then decides to build a new headquarters building, and works out a deal with the builders that it'll pay 1 Million a year for ten years, and then pay the builders a $100,000,000 lump sum to end it. If the CEO then goes to the Stockholders and says they're up $4,000,000 he's commiting fraud, because the truth is that he's signed up his company for a $60,000,000 loss. Enron and some of the shadier investment banks actually did just this, by trying to inflate their earnings as much as possible while keeping their liabilities off the books by every loophole imaginable.

So any corporation worth its salt has to follow the rules, and declares how much it's earning now, how much it will earn, and how much it owes (this is called 'accrual accounting'.) The problem is that the U.S. Government (and to be fair, all governments do this) makes its own rules, and cash accounting makes the government look a lot better. So while the official story is that the government has a deficit of $407 Billion, that discounts the increasing costs of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the shrinking tax payer pool, the future obligations of the U.S. Government, etc. etc. etc. So the actual figure of the deficit is around 3 Trillion dollars, IIRC. To be fair to the government, the Department of the Treasury does realize this is bad, and has released accounts of the problem (A PDF of their 2007 report), but that doesn't keep politicians from going to the public and declaring that we're only a couple hundred billion in the red and that a re-fiddling of the tax system can fix it for all time.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Post by Flagg »

CaptainZoidberg wrote:The irony of this is just painful. Are the Republicans giving up the "Fiscal Conservatism" thing now, or what?
Hi, this is the 1980's calling. Reagonomics?
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
CaptainZoidberg
Padawan Learner
Posts: 497
Joined: 2008-05-24 12:05pm
Location: Worcester Polytechnic
Contact:

Post by CaptainZoidberg »

Flagg wrote:
CaptainZoidberg wrote:The irony of this is just painful. Are the Republicans giving up the "Fiscal Conservatism" thing now, or what?
Hi, this is the 1980's calling. Reagonomics?
Ouch, I was a fertilized egg back in the 1980s (I'm 18 now), and wasn't really in touch with current economic policy.

But Reagonmics as I understand it is huge tax cuts for the rich with the intent that they'll invest it?
Pelranius
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3539
Joined: 2006-10-24 11:35am
Location: Around and about the Beltway

Post by Pelranius »

Reagan never got us into hairbrained foreign adventures, which at least we can be greatful to him for. Though to be fair to Bush, Reagan wasn't in the middle of an economic implosion.
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

CaptainZoidberg wrote:
Flagg wrote:
CaptainZoidberg wrote:The irony of this is just painful. Are the Republicans giving up the "Fiscal Conservatism" thing now, or what?
Hi, this is the 1980's calling. Reagonomics?
Ouch, I was a fertilized egg back in the 1980s (I'm 18 now), and wasn't really in touch with current economic policy.

But Reagonmics as I understand it is huge tax cuts for the rich with the intent that they'll invest it?
Reagonmics was seperate from the 'Slash taxes on the wealthy' movement. It was all about debt. Lots of debt. Pay the government on debt. Hey you, citizen! Have some debt, buy something nice. Debt for all!

Here's a graph of the debt as percentage of the GDP, from Truman to Bush The Younger.

Image
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
CaptainZoidberg
Padawan Learner
Posts: 497
Joined: 2008-05-24 12:05pm
Location: Worcester Polytechnic
Contact:

Post by CaptainZoidberg »

Ugh, I think given the interest rates on the debt it should be pretty obvious what amount of debt is appropriate. If a given investment will raise the GDP enough to offset interest rates, then taking out the debt makes sense. I mean, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the government to finance public education with debt, since most people end up having a much higher income from it.

I don't exactly see how an intelligent person couldn't see debt as a black/white issue. The payoff is either there or it isn't (oh yeah and sorry for derailing the thread).
User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5196
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Post by LaCroix »

I took my time to find some numbers.

Let's see, average deficit of ~400 billion per year, 8 years long(not including that it will take years to reduce deficit, even if the next POTUS actually tries to do it)...

But wait! When looking into the numbers for debt increase, actually the debt has risen ~5-600 bn a year(according to US treasury).

That's ~3(2.8) tn Dollars more debt in the last 5 years. Thats ~30 % of the actual debt of ~9tn.

What is interesting, is that the stated deficit is about 100-200 bn lower than the actual deficit, which means "real deficit"(the actual increase of debt) is ~30-50% higher than stated. That means the stated 490bn will amount to ~650-750bn debt. That doesn't include those hidden "end-of-contract" payments. Have fun!

With a prognosis of about 500bn deficit per year, it means that every year, the yearly deficit will increase by ~25bn due to interest ( at assumed 5%rate for the us treasury notes.) That increase is not including those promised tax cuts.

BEA states:
GDP at 13,9 tn, the actual debt of 9.5 tn -> 68%
Even Dept by public ( - the Medicare and other gouvernement trusts, which are running massive surpluses) is totaling nearly 6bn -> 42%

Balance of goods has steadily grown worse and reaches -60 bn/month.-> 720bn/year!

International investment position: - ~2000 bn dollars in 2007, being negative since ever.
Thats good, there is more money being invested in the US, isn't it? But it means that more and more of the US income is ownded by someone else, too. The world is buying the US, step by step.

Seems the US is not yet bankrupt, but determined to get there.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

Is Reaganomics like a sort of perverted Keynesianism? Where you deficit spend to finance economic growth regardless of how much money you have and whether the economy is doing well on its own?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Magus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 377
Joined: 2006-11-05 09:05pm
Location: Consistently in flux
Contact:

Post by Magus »

Surlethe wrote:Is Reaganomics like a sort of perverted Keynesianism? Where you deficit spend to finance economic growth regardless of how much money you have and whether the economy is doing well on its own?
Everything I've read about Reaganomics suggests that it follows the same general fiscal principles that credit card companies and social security use - specifically, buy now, pay later, and pretend that debt and interest don't exist. Someone else will take care of all that. :roll:
"As James ascended the spiral staircase towards the tower in a futile attempt to escape his tormentors, he pondered the irony of being cornered in a circular room."
User avatar
PeZook
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13237
Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Location: Poland

Post by PeZook »

Surlethe wrote:Is Reaganomics like a sort of perverted Keynesianism? Where you deficit spend to finance economic growth regardless of how much money you have and whether the economy is doing well on its own?
Basically, yes. Republicans have a way of massacring even the best ideas and diluting them into one-liner simplistic solutions.

Because, seriously, it's easy to go from: "Save the economy from complete catastrophe by taking out debt to finance public works, education and investment in industry, hoping to pay off the debt later by reaping the benefits of improved infrastructure and tax returns." to "Spend as much as possible because more money = always good!!!" :D
Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

PeZook wrote:Basically, yes. Republicans have a way of massacring even the best ideas and diluting them into one-liner simplistic solutions.

Because, seriously, it's easy to go from: "Save the economy from complete catastrophe by taking out debt to finance public works, education and investment in industry, hoping to pay off the debt later by reaping the benefits of improved infrastructure and tax returns." to "Spend as much as possible because more money = always good!!!" :D
There are a number of countries in the world that adopted that policy, and then they encountered trouble and now plenty of construction projects are incomplete.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Record-Breaking Deficit. 490.. Until you're honest.

Post by Stuart Mackey »

SirNitram wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Link

According to ABC, this omits the war, medicare costs, unemployment costs, the housing bill... The real number is guesstimated at 600Billion this year. But hey, it's just 'creative accounting'. Those Enron guys did it, and it didn't hurt anyone, right?
How do those things cost only $110 billion?

But, realistically, all of the other budgets have omitted similar things. The "surplus," for instance, didn't include huge Social Security withdrawals and things like that.
I'm going by ABC's estimate. Frankly, it's insane to think it's not edging up to the T mark. You can't fund a war with privateers and the moneypit of reconstruction while cutting taxes and bailing out huge investment firms.
Yes you can, they are doing it, its the opportunity costs of doing so that the problems lie with.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
User avatar
Phantasee
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.
Posts: 5777
Joined: 2004-02-26 09:44pm

Post by Phantasee »

Slightly off topic, but was the US Debt really almost 100% of GDP at the start of the graph? I'm not getting it.
XXXI
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Phantasee wrote:Slightly off topic, but was the US Debt really almost 100% of GDP at the start of the graph? I'm not getting it.
Yes. What's not to get?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
Pelranius
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3539
Joined: 2006-10-24 11:35am
Location: Around and about the Beltway

Post by Pelranius »

That's because of World War II. I believe that most of the creditors then were domestic.
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Phantasee wrote:Slightly off topic, but was the US Debt really almost 100% of GDP at the start of the graph? I'm not getting it.
Yes it was nearly 100%, which was almost all because of WW2 (and some linger WW1 debt). During the war the US government quite simply refused to tax heavily enough to pay for the war, and bond drives didn’t bring in much, so we just ran up a huge deficit. A fair portion of that debt is still being paid off; but the US GDP has grown to be something like five times larger then it was in 1945 so the percentage of debt has gone down despite rampant deficit spending ever since.

Now keep in mind even 100% isn’t anything like a record, currently Japan has nearly a 200% debt to GDP ratio going on, and IIRC for a while in the 1990s Germany was at 140% because of the immense costs of reunification. That’s not to say even 65% is good, it by no means is, but this should all be kept in mind before one assumes the US is doomed. The war in Iraq will be over soon and that alone will take away around a third of the yearly debt. Unfortunately with both McCain and Obama promising trillions in tax cuts, and numerous programs having been flat funded for years on end now, I can’t see how we'll get rid of any of the rest .
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Phantasee
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.
Posts: 5777
Joined: 2004-02-26 09:44pm

Post by Phantasee »

I guess I've never really considered the financial cost of WW2. I mean, you're fighting for survival, in the case of the Brits and other Europeans, so I didn't really think about how they had to pay for everything... It's enlightening, thanks Skimmer.
XXXI
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Post by Glocksman »

Phantasee wrote:I guess I've never really considered the financial cost of WW2. I mean, you're fighting for survival, in the case of the Brits and other Europeans, so I didn't really think about how they had to pay for everything... It's enlightening, thanks Skimmer.
I'm no expert on postwar European history, but I found both Austerity Britain and Postwar to be really interesting reads about the immediate postwar period in Europe.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
Post Reply