Slashdot Mirror
Debt Deal Reached
Global markets are on the rise in response to a deal between President Obama and congressional Republicans on the debt. The deal would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. However, most economists think this isn't enough and does not remove the threat that the nation's AAA credit rating could be downgraded.
Break with all capitalist parties! For a workers party that fights for a workers government!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
As an engineer that uses math on a daily basis, the more I read about the rising debt the more confused I am. It seems that a strategy of Reagan's was to take in less money in taxes than the government spends and this strategy has been intact for far too long. So if you're trying to balance a budget, how in the hell do you justify spending way more money than you take in? Either you have to raise taxes or cut spending. It's pretty clear that Clinton was the only president to break from this norm since then and now we're shocked that our debt crises get worse and worse every term?
... so basic that when you're taught how to balance a checkbook in high school, they don't even teach it in Math class. It's a general life skill and our country is failing at life in general.
I don't spend more money than I take in. I see commercials for people like that who have credit card debt because they couldn't do some simple balancing and see that they were spending more than they made. Why on Earth are we still implementing tax cuts and deficit spending?! Have we given up any hope of ever getting out of the red as a country?
This is very basic math
My work here is dung.
Debtor says, "I would like to borrow some money."
Creditor says, "And what do you owe now?"
Debtor: "So much I need at least 145 years to pay it back."
Creditor: "Tell me your plan."
Debtor: "I have no plan to pay it back. I will only pay the
interest."
Creditor: "You want your kids, grand kids, and great grand kids to pay it back?"
Debtor: "It will be very painful for me not to get the loan. I can print up some money if I need to."
Creditor: "You have no plan."
Debtor: "I am working on a plan to borrow a little less than usual - 10% less."
Creditor: "You have no plan to balance the budget, you plan only to keep borrowing, you print up money, you dump your debt on 3 future generations and counting, and you want us to believe you have integrity, and are worthy of credit and trust?"
Debtor: "I want what I want when I want it, and I want it right now.
Give me the loan or I will print the money!"
Can someone explain to me why US Treasuries should be rated AAA in the first place?
Money is paid out to investors out of new investor's money, and the cycle continues. Last time I checked, this is also known as a Ponzi Scheme and it is inevitable that it eventually collapses.
These are the same people who rated junk mortgage bonds as a good investment, so I'm not surprised.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
An agreement has been reached, but it hasn't been passed by either the house or senate yet. (It's almost certain to pass the senate, as that's where the compromise originated. The house, on the other hand...well, we'll see.)
Yet, in the back of my mind, there was a part of me wondering whether an agreement would ever be reached. The conspiracy theory in me kept saying that there were enough rich fat cats who were paying off key congressmen to sabotage the process and make sure that no agreement was ever reached. Why? Because billions of dollars had been invested in credit-default swaps against the United States debt.
The government is slated to spend almost 10 trillion more over the next decade due to built-in yearly spending increases.
So if we cut 1 trillion, we're really going to be spending 9 trillion more.
If the plan was to just freeze spending, the CBO would score that as a 9.5 trillion "cut".
Going further in to debt is not a good strategy to becoming debt free. A person can't drink themselves sober, and economies can't borrow themselves out of debt. The US government should have minted two $1 trillion dollar platinum coins, thus creating debt free currency, deposited that into the Federal Reserve Bank, and then wrote checks against it. Instead they're going to borrow $2 trillion from the private Federal Reserve Bank. Now the US is going to have to make interest payments on that borrowed money. The US spends 500 billion dollars a year on interest payments. If they had created the money at the mint, they wouldn't have to pay interest on it. Watch the recent Still reports to learn more about this: http://www.youtube.com/user/bstill3
The USA having a triple A rating says more about the rating companies than about the USA
For someone from a country with a better grip on its economy, the whole ordeal seems rather strange:
According to Lexington at the Economist, this whole hoopla was the Republican's fault.
the Republican House has come up with is a non-solution (since the Senate cannot buy it) to a problem entirely of the Republicans' own making. The reason for this crisis is that instead of just raising the debt ceiling in the customary way so that the government can pay the bills Congress has already run up, the Republicans decided to point a pistol at the American economy and threaten to pull the trigger if they did not get the spending cuts they wanted.
Also, I think it was horribly hypocritical of the Republicans to blame "entitlement programs" for the problems and never mentioning the wars and their action of lowering taxes during war time - that's what killed us. All the other reasons like Obama Care are just distractions - especially when you consider that it hasn't even taken effect yet. And why is SS on the table in this context? Bullshit!
Yes eventually Social Security will have to be addressed but to include it in the debt ceiling was ludicrous.
By the way, the debt ceiling allow the government to pay it's current bills and nothing more. Thinking that it allows for increasing government spending just shows how little we Americans truly understand how our government operates - myself included.
The deal would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. However, most economists think this isn't enough and does not remove the threat that the nation's AAA credit rating could be downgraded.
Of course it's not going to do anything substantial. You really thought the Republicans were fighting this fight truly to solve and end the debt woes of this country rather than politicking for 2012? Especially when the terms of last 3 Republican presidents accounted for $9.5 trillion of the $14 trillion this country carries? This in no way makes excuses Obama pushing even more debt on pile, but the Republicans hardly have a case for being "fiscally conservative" when Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr piled on 67% of the current debt.
...There was no Federal Reserve prior to 1913 when it was created in a secret agreement by bankers and then spun to the public as a way to "regulate" and prevent abuses in the banking industry.
However Jefferson opposed the first bank of the United States which was similar to the Federal Reserve system but yet entirely different because it didn't deal in fiat currency and money creation.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Yes, but when using your checkbook you take the value of the currency as a given. A state has (limited) control over the value of it's currency (by limiting or expanding the available sum of printed money), thereby it also has (again, limited) control over the value of it's own dept. Now you might say that playing with the value of the currency can have complex consequences, and that would be true. Still, macro economics work differently than micro economics.
I completely agree that the analogy is not perfect (never is). What I'm asking is why, if people like Cheney said that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" then why are we seeing negative effects? Suddenly we're concerned about our AAA rating? Why should we care? Deficits don't matter, right? If you're saying that a checkbook deficit and national deficit are two completely different things then why are we seeing a threat of losing our credit rating and other money problems that are associated with drowning yourself in debt on a personal level?
My work here is dung.
The actual funny part is.... You all still think there is a difference between republicans and democrats.
They've kept that thru all of this. It's outstanding. Best scam ever. Wish i'd thought of it.
Keep the population arguing over D/R while we rob them all blind. It's genius!
Oh wait... i live here too.. shit.
"No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the cuts being discussed are illusory and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in prospective spending increases. This is akin to a family saving $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda." http://www.ronpaul2012.net/2011/08/01/ron-paul-on-the-debt-ceiling-debate-just-freeze-the-budget/
Dallas Real Estate
The US spends more money on its military than all other countries combined. Why not save a bit there, on the biggest budget post of them all? Saving some small posts here and there without even looking at the expenditures that really digs holes in the wallet seems, insane.
Seems military spending is sacred even if countless research has show excessive waste and that US military could get by on half the money without any noticable effect on the defence capabilities.
To an outsider it looks as if the US is on the exact same path as the USSR was some years ago when it overspent all its money on the military complex. Once that happens the US will have the exact same situation that Soviet has had, with states wanting to jump off the sinking ship.
HTTP/1.1 400
The potential downgrade has little to do with the amount of debt owed - rather, it is a reflection of the rating agencies' assessment of how likely we are to repay our bonds. Originally, simply raising the debt ceiling would have been sufficient to satisfy the rating agencies. However, now that Republicans have made clear that raising the debt ceiling is an opportunity to extract concessions with the nation's credit rating on the line, some of the rating agencies wanted to see that Congress was capable of reaching agreements without blowing up the world economy.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
...sound like it is a battle between common sense or good ideas, and Republicans?
Well, yes, but it's not that much of a mystery why they do so. The role of the Republicans in US political theater is to be so crazy that the Democrats sound sane by comparison. Then the Democrats make a 'compromise' that consists of about 95% of what the Republicans said they wanted, and 5% of what the Democrat's corporate backers wanted, and 0% of what Americans wanted. Then the Democrats go to the TV cameras and explain that this was the best deal they could make, which the Republicans go to Fox News and cheer about their triumph of will. (What made the recent health care law different was that in that case it was about 75% of what the Democrat's corporate backers wanted, and only 25% of what the Republican corporate backers wanted.)
Any idea that the US government is representing the will of the American people is an illusion.
I am officially gone from
All this wrangling has nothing to do with the debt or trying to help the economy. Some people were just horrified when Obama was elected and will do anything, even sell their own country down the river, to get him out of office Following Rush Limbaugh logic, conservatives can't be seen as doing anything that might help the president. Hey, if the country defaults, there is a 50% chance Obama will get blamed and might lose the next election! Those odds are good enough for us!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Mr. Cheney, your breakfast is ready. Now leave the computer alone and get over to the table.
We've got your favorite today, Lucky Charms and fresh-squeezed baby's blood!
You are welcome on my lawn.
About the only thing right about the summary is the spelling.
The deal would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. However, most economists think this isn't enough and does not remove the threat that the nation's AAA credit rating could be downgraded.
This debt crisis is entirely manufactured and artificial, the reason the country's AAA rating could be downgraded is because idiots are playing political games with our credit worthiness, and most economists think that the economy needs stimulus, not immediate cuts in spending. (Oh, and since current Congresses can't bind future Congresses, the $ 2 trillion number is also meaningless.)
> Because the overwhelming majority of news reporters are Democrats,
Past a certain point, only the facts can speak to the heart of the matter. You can only do so much to skew the presentation of those facts if you do your job as a journalist.
Besides, it's not as if there are no dissenting opinions anyways.
Call "the biased liberal media" another element of the crackpot teabager mentality.
The vast majority of US views favor spending more. There's only real question is what to spend it on.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The potential downgrade has little to do with the amount of debt owed - rather, it is a reflection of the rating agencies' assessment of how likely we are to repay our bonds.
Please reread what you wrote: The amount of debt you owe has little to do ... with the likelihood that you can repay that debt...?
So, to keep the analogy the same as the current US situation: if I take on so much credit card debt, that I need to get new credit cards just to keep paying the interest on the old credit cards, it will (supposedly) have little effect on my credit rating, because it (supposedly) does not affect my ability to repay the principal.
This is your assertion, now please support it with evidence.
It still has to pass both the house and senate. The house may still be a problem.
Until it does and is signed, "the check is in the mail".
Let me help you get this straight: no rating agency was seriuosly suggesting downgrading the U.S. credit rating UNTIL Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling. They were a long way from worrying about whether we would have enough revenue to pay interest, even with the great recession.
That's because there is a big difference between being in a lot of debt (federal deficit) while having a job you won't lose (taxes), and starting to tell your bank you won't be making your next credit card payment not because you don't have the lower interest credit line (HELOC) to offload the debt to, but because you simply refuse to. Once you start acting irrationally (teabagger) then you become a less reliable debt issuer (borrower).
Is that clear enough now?
Someone had to do it.
I know this is a troll, but I fear some people actually think that cold-turkey entitlement cutoff makes sense.
If you yank the support out from under such a large portion of the population who *cannot* realistically find work right now (and even if they can find work with non-living wages), you make a lot of people very desperate. Out of this desperation at best you will have higher crime rate as people resort to whatever means possible to keep themselves fed and sheltered. On the worse end of the scale of possibilities, the internet tough guy lynch mobs for the rich become real. This is why the rich and comfortable should not begrudge welfare and similar things, they are the things pacifying the poor to stave off more risky behavior. Police forces will need more money and those not on welfare would incur higher risk. This is also why the wealthy should be all about tax hikes if the government situation seems sufficiently dire to threaten those programs, it would be far cheaper than the alternative.
Foreign aid is a little less absolute, but similar principles apply. If *no one* helps then violence bred by desperation is likely to threaten our resources, our travelers, whatever these nations can get at to extract resources from wealthy nations. You think no one should 'steal' from one and give to another, but without foreign aid there is a chance the afflicted nation will endeavor to steal with no regard for the welfare of the victims. At that point you'd gain the perspective that calling foreign aid spending 'theft' is really inaccurate. Scaling things back I could see, but I think that foreign aid is a small piece of the pie.
I also agree that our military is overextended and measures must be taken to scale back our presence, but being all or nothing stands to seriously destabilize some places absolutely dependent upon our presence.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Please reread what you wrote: The amount of debt you owe has little to do ... with the likelihood that you can repay that debt...?
Afaict the majority of the US debt is denominated in US dollars and the US government can create US dollars out of thin air either directly or by ordering the fed to print them and hand them over. So really the only way for the US to default on their debt is if they "choose" to do so (in this case by refusing to raise a self-imposed "debt limit").
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Adding on to what skids just said, Ezra Klein did a pretty good job of summarizing S&P's movement over the past year, so I'll let him do the work:
In short, our debt/GDP ratio is not what's driving the potential downgrade; rather, it's the concern that we won't be able to make the decisions necessary to eventually get our debt/GDP ratio stable. As I said, the amount the US owes has little to do with our credit rating (note: not "nothing," but "little"), since we are financially able to repay our obligations and any likely new obligations for the foreseeable future.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
One thing the Republican party; and yes I will call them out on this; and their supporters on various blogs and the media won't tell you is this.
There are two sides to the Laffer curve. Raising high taxes decreases revenue. Lowering low taxes decreases revenue. Taxes are already at historically low levels, so it's pretty obvious what we should be doing to increase revenue.
I've never seen a leftist or Democrat of any type, extremist or moderate, deny that the downward slope of the Laffer curve exists. On the other hand, denial that the upward slope of the Laffer curve seems to be axiomatic for Republicans.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You incessantly babble on about something as relevant as Justin Bieber's boxer shorts when, quite simply, the mafioso banks made you an offer you can't refuse
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Sounds more than a bit far out and almost totally misinformed.
China's military options for collecting on their debts are almost zero. Where will China export the goods it needs to keep its economy going if they start a war with the United States?
Further, China buys US treasuries to keep their currency valuation down so that they can continue to be the low-cost contract manufacturer to the world. Without keeping their currency low, the strength of their economy would push their currency higher, making them uncompetitive as exporters and pretty much derailing the vast majority of their economy.
A derailed economy REALLY scares the Chinese leadership, as their number one focus is maintaining order and putting a couple hundred million people out of work does not help with order.
The US is almost totally in control when it comes to Chinese owned debt. Its denominated in our own currency. Any threat to dump it would probably be met by a US threat to simply void it. They could stop buying it, but it would have a deleterious impact on their currency valuation.
What's missing from the recent coverage over the the debt ceiling dust up is the sentiment of many Republicans that Government is too big and by squeezing it from a revenue side they hope to stop its expansion and try to shrink it. This has been a long-term Republican strategy, but its largely been a failure. It may have slowed some expansion, but generally speaking the net outcome has been to cause deficits to be run up.
I largely think that some tax increase is necessary. I'd personally like to see a tax increase across the board, including low-income earners. I'd eliminate the earned income tax credit that basically allows some 40 percent of the population to pay no taxes -- I don't think a reasonable tax on them would amount to much, but I think it creates a free ride which is a poor tax policy. I think it would also philosophically undermine the "40 percent of Americans pay no taxes" line which is used to refute increasing taxes on the wealthy who can frankly afford to pay them.
More importantly, we need to have a long discussion in this country as to what's vital from the government (roads, infrastructure, safe food and medicine as a start) and what's merely nice if we can afford it.
$300 million and give $1.00 to each american.
FTFY
In my opinion, for $1 of my money, they can keep the planned parenthood program. We can evaluate that once we get to the point where that little bit of money begins to matter. We have wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other military or paramilitary spending in so many other programs that the $1 for planned parenthood is the least of our concerns for now.
At the bare minimum... at least the entitlement programs like SS, welfare, planned parenthood, and medicaid go into the pockets of the people of the US (except for big pharma which should be addressed) instead of only being vaporized in labor, bombs, and gifts in other parts of the world. Too bad we can't have our military do the big service projects inside of the USA like dam / bridge / road building and maintenance. At least then we could keep our coveted military spending AND we would get some rather direct benefits from it domestically.
This is factually incorrect, and honestly it's not even hard to check. Why didn't you?
over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but we all have to work from the same set of facts. If your political stance requires that you believe things that are not true, that doesn't necessarily mean that your politics are wrong. But it's a strong indication.
Take some time. Familiarize yourself with the numbers. Decide what you really believe, not what other people have told you. Then resume posting to Slashdot.
"If you think high taxes on the Rich is apart of the solution, take a look at NY State, they did this and the rich have either left or are in the process of leaving and lowering NY's revenue generation." is factually incorrect.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/29/135813061/studies-rich-dont-flee-high-tax-states
As a matter of fact that's just about correct, if I understand it right. I know you're trying to be snarky, but I think in approximation and analogy that's how it works. The issue isn't directly how much US owes compared with its wealth (it would never be the absolute value of the debt, anyway), but whether creditors are willing to keep lending, which of course depends on other interrelated things like the growth of the US economy, the money supply, the rate of inflation, interest rates, and how the play of all of these factors and others in the economies of other countries in the world effect their credit-worthiness relative to the US. If lenders start to decide they don't trust the US to hold their money, more than they do any other country, that's when the American national debt becomes a huge problem for everyone. And I think it's true that one of the reasons this could happen is if people start to see the risk of American default because of the overwhelming size of the debt relative to the US economy.
You're absolutely right I should support all this with evidence, and I'm astonished that it seems to be really hard to find reliable explanations of the dynamics of government debt online. Maybe I'm using the wrong keywords. However, the US Government Accountability Office has a pretty good explanation of the reasons why creditors generally buy US debt. It doesn't say exactly what I'm saying, but gives a more detailed explanation of the way US debt works.
I'm not an economist, of course, so possibly talking out of the wrong end.
Planned Parenthood has very little to do with abortion. The name itself describes exactly what its prime operative is. It is to help people plan their parenthood. Why? So that they don't raise children improperly, become bankrupt and end up costing tax payers far more than this program would have saved to begin with. You need to turn off the radio and do some research into this.
Question - Might that $300 million be an investment that saves the government a lot of money?
You know, in
-Medicaid or unpaid emergency room care for pregnancies, miscarriages, and births
-Medicaid or unpaid care for STDs
-Social Security disability payments for children born with severe birth defects due to lack of proper prenatal care
-GDP shrinkage from family members having to stop working to care for the above children
-Prison housing expenses for extra unwanted children from late teens onward
-Police expenses from extra unwanted children from late teens onward
Also,
That's $1, you moron.
It's that simple.
Look up Fractional Reserve Banking. Money (credit) is borrowed into existence. When you take a loan out, your bank creates money and gives it to you. They didn't have the money before the loan was made.
Deleted
Please reread what you wrote: The amount of debt you owe has little to do ... with the likelihood that you can repay that debt...?
Well, depends how you look at it. The amount of debt alone isn't important; it's the amount of debt compared with likely future income. And in the case of the federal government, we'll almost certainly repay that debt, even if it's ultimately done with an inflation tax.
For example, Greece and Portugal and Ireland and Italy would not be such problems if it were not for the Euro. If they still had their own currencies, they'd have inflation on their currency and the citizens in those countries would pay for their expenses. But since they are all using the Euro, that inflation would also affect Germany and France, forcing those countries to bail out their Euro counterparts to avoid inflation on their currency.
Anyway, for the federal government, the size of the debt does not matter in terms of our ability to repay it. It most certainly matters in terms of future economic stability, but the people who will be screwed will be your average citizens.
paintball
I don't like it when people make Social Security a moral imperative. It isn't. It's a practical imperative. Social Security is essentially "living too long" insurance. Everybody pays into it, and when you get old enough, you get paid so that you don't have to keep working to avoid living on the street. This is done in a very, very financially efficient manner. Were you to replace the same program with some private equivalent, much more money would be lost to administration (like advertising), profits, etc. Medicare / Medicaid works the same way - insuring old people isn't profitable, so the government has to do it. And Medicaid steps in to care for people who no longer have any assets.
The reason social security is a practical imperative is that it's better than any alternative. You have to ask yourself, what do you replace social security with? Well, the same thing that exists in 2nd and 3rd world countries: Extended families.
So, you might get lucky - your parents both die of heart attacks when they're 65 and leave you a nice inheritance. Or, you might not get lucky. Maybe your parents live to 85 years old and have a debilitating condition like Alzheimers that requires round-the-clock care. In that case, under the current system, social security pays enough for them to not live on the street, and Medicare covers their hospital bills and some prescriptions. It doesn't cover nursing home care though, so your parents will use all of their assets paying for nursing home care (or, more appropriately, you'll use all their assets paying for nursing home care) until they are broke. At that point, Medicaid will step in and cover their nursing home care.
If you eliminate social security and medicare and medicaid, you instead have different choices: Start bankrupting yourself paying for your parent's care, let your parents move in with you and do nothing except work and have everyone in your family take turns bathing and wiping the ass of your parent, or let them die in the street.
Social Security and Medicare isn't just for old people either. Let's say your sister or brother gets in a car accident and has brain damage and can no longer work or really care for themselves. Social security and Medicare will pay enough that they won't have to live on the street and, once they are completely broke, get their medical bills paid. Remember, since they can't work, they lose any insurance they had.
Without social security and medicaid, once your brother or sister has no assets left, you can bankrupt yourself paying for their care, or let them die. Those are your options - let 'em die, or become bankrupt - because of an accident. Or maybe it's cancer. But as soon as you're sick enough that you can't work, you're sick enough that nobody has to pay for your medical care either.
So, sure, we can get rid of social security and medicare and medicaid. That's likely, at some point, to really make your life difficult. That's a huge cost to you - you lose a big benefit. What do you get? Do your taxes go down? To you get to keep more of your money? No. You don't. The benefit of getting rid of social security and medicare and medicaid is that the richest Americans can continue to pay 15% taxes on their capital gains and dividends while the rest of us pay up to a marginal 43% combined on income and payroll taxes.
The rich don't want to cut social security and medicare and medicaid to help you - they want to cut them to help them.
paintball
The thing about the Brits is somehow you have the chutzpah to hold a "Commonwealth Games"[1] and people actually show up ;).
Heck a few countries that weren't ex-colonies actually applied (and got) the privilege of pretending to be like an ex-colony...
FWIW, I live in an excolony and in that colony the Brits were probably a lesser evil compared to the rulers they supplanted.
[1] Interesting thing to call it too right?
"No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the cuts being discussed are illusory and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in prospective spending increases. This is akin to a family saving $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda." http://www.ronpaul2012.net/2011/08/01/ron-paul-on-the-debt-ceiling-debate-just-freeze-the-budget/
Lisa: I'll stop buying Malibu Stacey clothing.
Bart: And I'll take up smoking and give that up.
Homer: Good for you, son. Giving up smoking is one of the hardest things you'll ever have to do. Have a dollar.
[gives a dollar bill to Bart]
Lisa: But he didn't do anything!
Homer: Didn't he, Lisa? Didn't he?
All this talk about Reagan's deficit spending, Clinton's deficit spending, and Bush's deficit spending is very interesting. But why is it that no one wants to talk about Obama's deficit spending? He is on pace to double Bush's spending, and triple the per-year deficit spending.
Let's stop arguing about who is worse, and concede that they are all to blame. Then let's get on with finding a way to build budgets closer to $$OUT = $$IN.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
sigh... you're a complete idiot. keeping the war funding off the budget did not keep it off the books. It kept the spending from being a budgetary asset. when the wars are over, the money allocated to them disappears When its on budget, all the money allocated to it can be spent on other things. Not really smart to do it the later way now is it. But that's how the US government works. And yes, we have already seen claims of paying for crap with savings from ending the wars. So Obama basically made emergency spending permanent spending.