Deficit...does anyone know for sure....

[Guest]

what the deficit was when the current administration took office ?

My memory says it was about 400-500 billion, yet looking at the Obama website....http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

it says that President Obama "inherited" a defict of 1.3 Trillion !!!

[Guest]

Bucco, I'm not sure precisely what the deficit was at the end of 2008, but the $1.3 trillion mentioned on Obama's website is probably pretty close. One of the problems was the way the Obama administration is "counting the beans" compared to the way the Bush administration counted.

The entire cost of the wars in the Middle East were not included in the statement of the deficit. While Bush was in office, he financed the war with many special appropriation bills that were kept separate when the calculation of the deficit was made and discussed. As I recall, the wars in the Middle East have cost an amount just a little short of $1 billion since we invaded Iraq in 2002. The same was true of the $750 billion in "economic stimulus" money that was requested by the Bush administration and approved by Congress after the election, but before the inaguration. Any of that money that was actually disbursed (most of it wasn't) wasn't included in the calculation of the deficit either.

While this Congress has taken spending to another level in a recent partial year spending bill, and the new President opted not to veto their spending plans, at least he should be credited for putting all the expenditures in a single budget so the public can see exactly what's being spent and how much must be borrowed to fund the spending. In his proposed 2009 budget, the war, the stimulus, everything, is shown as line items with a total proposed expenditure for the year for everything. That's a level of "transparency" that didn't exist for the last eight years, at least.

Maybe someone else can actually come up with what the total federal spending was in 2008 in comparison to the proposed spending for FY 2009. Remember, while the President has proposed a budget for 2009, Congress has not yet chosen to address it with enabling legislation. Last time I checked, the budget and all the proposed spending was bouncing around somewhere in Charlie Rangel's Ways & Means committee. (Does that make you feel better?) The House can opt to spend less, or a lot more than was recommended by the President. Other than his veto and the power of the bully pulpit, the President has no Constitutional authority over government spending. The House of Representatives has total authority over spending as well as the taxes they choose to collect to pay for their spending, as well as the cap on national debt needed to finance the deficit.

One number I am sure of, because I just read it in the Wall Street Journal last week, is that the current national debt is just a few dollars short of $550,000 for every household in America. That doesn't count the deficit that will be added as the result of the 2009 budget.

[Guest]

What is really ironic about the debt is that the largest and most powerful Communist country on the planet seems to hold the largest share of our IOUs.

[Guest]

Bucco, I'm not sure what the deficit was at the end of 2008, but it was surely more than $500 billion. One of the problems was the way the Obama administration is "counting the beans" compared to the way the Bush administration counted.

The entire cost of the wars in the Middle East were not included in the statement of the deficit. While Bush was in office, he financed the war with many special appropriation bills that were kept separate when the calculation of the deficit was made and discussed. The same was true of the $750 billion in "economic stimulus" money that was requested by the Bush administration and approved by Congress after the election, but before the inaguration. That wasn't included in the deficit either.

While this Congress has taken spending to another level in a recent partial year spending bill, and the new President opted not to veto their spending plans, at least he should be credited for putting all the expenditures in a single budget so the public can see exactly what's being spent and how much must be borrowed to fund the spending. That's a level of "transparency" that didn't exist for the last eight years, at least.

Maybe someone else can actually come up with what the total federal spending was in 2008 in comparison to the proposed spending for FY 2009. Remember, while the President has proposed a budget for 2009, Congress has not yet chosen to address it with enabling legislation. They can opt to spend less, or a lot more than was recommended by the President. Other than his veto and the power of the bully pulpit, the President has no Constitutional authority over government spending. The Hoiuse of Representatives has total authority over spending.

One number I am sure of, because I just read it in the Wall Street Journal last week, is that the current national debt is just a few dollars short of $550,000 for every household in America. That doesn't count the deficit that will be added as the result of the 2009 budget.

Thanks VK..appreciate it. This honestly was not a "political" question. I just wanted to do some investigating of the deficit and found much of what you say...ie., there are a number of ways to come up with a figure.

Not meant to put one President up or down on this because the politicians will confuse us with numbers anyway and blame the other guy.

Well, will work up my own "system" I suppose.

Thanks again for your input !

[Guest]

Don't worry about the cost of all the bail outs and the current deficit. Just think of the cost of creating a "beacon of freedom and liberty" in the Middle East. Only 3 trillion dollars!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

The good news, Iraq's oil revenues will pay for the whole thing. Just ask the tooth fairy.

[Guest]

a deficit we have to cut expenses and live within our means.....we are not able to spend more than we have in our check book.

How is it when ad the POTUS tells us as he did last week ....we are out of money....the 545 can continue to pile on new programs costing more than out current deficit?

The new health plan is supposed to run into the 10 trillion $$ level....
but doesn't seem to impede Washington.....how can that be?

I guess the answer must be the own the printing presses....eh?

As the historical trend has and is proving the dollar becomes worth less each year....destined to not be worth the paper printed on....remember when pesos were 8-10 to the dollar (many many years ago)...now it is thousands (or something like it).

Seems like deficits looking backward created or contributed to by previous administrations (not limited to the last 8 years by the way) are BAD.....deficits looking forward just don't seem to matter......NO MATTER HOW BIG THE NUMBERS....now just why is that?

BTK

[Guest]

In 1991, during the Bush 41 administration, Congress passed a bill called Pay-Go. It required that any new spending bill have a comparable amount of cost reductions so that the net effect of the new legislation would be a "zero" impact on the federal deficit.

That worked fine until the ten-year time limit for Pay-Go expired in 2001. Very quietly, both Congress and the newly-elected President let Pay-Go "sunset".

From that point forward, it's been Katy-Bar-The Door as far a government spending is concerned. Actually, as each year passed, the deficits actually increased. Congress was emboldened by the removal of any constraint on spending.

Forget party affiliations -- get rid of the Congress! Particularly get rid of every member of the House of Representatives. They and they alone have authority over spending and taxation--not the President and not the Senate. It's the 435 members of the House that have to go if we are to correct our fiscal woes.

[Guest]

... As I recall, the wars in the Middle East have cost an amount just a little short of $1 billion since we invaded Iraq in 2002....


VK, I think you meant to say "$1 trillion", not "$1 billion", did you not?

[Guest]

Obama likes to say,“We inherited this mess.” The debt was 41 per cent of GDP at the end of 1988, President Ronald Reagan’s last year in office, the same as at the end of 2008, President George W. Bush’s last year in office. If one thinks policies from Reagan to Bush were mistakes does it make any sense to double down on those mistakes, as with the 80 per cent debt-to-GDP level projected when Mr Obama leaves office?

Believe it or not..the debt to per cent of GDP has been relatively the same for over 60 years, from what I can understand. We are going where the USA has never been before. But that is OK. Obama wants us to tighten our belts and buy little "green" cars and get aquainted with a more reasonable "lifestyle". I guess I'll have to cancel my $$$ trip $$$ to New York where I was gonna take my wife to see a Broadway Play. *sigh*

Keedy

[Guest]

We will wait to see who pays for the BO couples $250,000 weekend......we the people at this point like we do all the other fat cats in Washington.....who are millionaires traveling on our nickel too. I couldn't get away with that in corporate America.

BTK

[Guest]

We will wait to see who pays for the BO couples $250,000 weekend......we the people at this point like we do all the other fat cats in Washington.....who are millionaires traveling on our nickel too. I couldn't get away with that in corporate America.

BTK

Are you telling me were not get our money's worth from Pelosi's $$$ trips home to La La Land every weekend on government jets? Are you saying she is not worth every penney? :shrug:

Keedy

[Guest]

The wars will cost a tril or more. Sorry for the mistake. Hey, a billion here, a trillion there...sooner or later, it's really a lot of money!

[Guest]

The wars will cost a tril or more. Sorry for the mistake. Hey, a billion here, a trillion there...sooner or later, it's really a lot of money!

Well, I wonder why we didn't go belly-up after WWll?

[Guest]

Well, I wonder why we didn't go belly-up after WWll?

Harry Truman.:eclipsee_gold_cup:

[Guest]

Harry Truman.:eclipsee_gold_cup:

Well, if what they say is true that WWII brought us out of depression then why can't our present wars make us prosperous? Inquiring minds want to know:confused:
Keedy