Poll: Obama and the deficit

[dsity]

It will go up. But compared to what was spent in Bushe's term and his, there will be no comparison.

 

[TallBill]

Will the deficit increase as a % compared to the GDP? That's the real question that matters.

 

[jpeyton]

It seems the Republitrolls are having a dilemma.

First they accuse Obama of raising everyone's taxes to pay for his spending.

Next they accuse him of not paying for his spending, thus increasing the federal deficit.

Which one is it guys? You do realize that letting Bush's tax cut expire instantly raises federal revenue and cuts the deficit, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Will the deficit increase as a % compared to the GDP? That's the real question that matters.

That's always been disingenuous, at best. The notion that perpetual debt acquisition is acceptable so long as it's below a certain % of GDP is fool's gold...

 

[ProfJohn]

For the record:

We went from a $200 billion deficit in 1994 to a balanced budget in 1998, 4 years.

The poor economy will make things difficult, but once the economy is on track it would not take that long to get the budget fixed if they wanted too.
We don't lack the ability to balance the budget, we lack the will to balance the budget.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It will go up.

There is nothing in Obama's agenda or record that suggests he plans to cut spending.

Bush said he would, and the deficit went up.

So maybe the opposite will happen with Obama.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In the current situation there is little doubt of it going up significantly. Obama has promised many expensive things, health care for instance. Just look at what Medicaid costs now. He can raise taxes for it of course, but by a crushing amount on more than just the wealthy. That means to deliver, he's going to have to fund his programs like Bush funded Iraq which is to just pretend it doesn't cost as much as it does. They'll just raise the credit limit on the Govt. Gold Card.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I, like everbody else here, have no idea.

You have no idea..... what a surprise.

 

[jamesall]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I, like everbody else here, have no idea.

You have no idea..... what a surprise.

moonbeam have no idea!? naw!

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: jamesall

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I, like everbody else here, have no idea.

You have no idea..... what a surprise.

moonbeam have no idea!? naw!

Well he does have a few but they are all wrong.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: jamesall

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I, like everbody else here, have no idea.

You have no idea..... what a surprise.

moonbeam have no idea!? naw!

Well he does have a few but they are all wrong.

Watch out, there's bound to be a 150k-ton cargo carrier full of irony falling rapidly towards your head..

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: TallBill
Will the deficit increase as a % compared to the GDP? That's the real question that matters.

That's always been disingenuous, at best. The notion that perpetual debt acquisition is acceptable so long as it's below a certain % of GDP is fool's gold...

I didn't say that it was acceptable, it's simply a better historic way to track the deficit.

 

[Genx87]

Without major cutting of federal programs, it wont go down. That wont happen due to the makeup of our legislative and executive branches.

I have no idea if the deficits will increase under Obama. I suspect they will, and possibly greatly. But we wont know until his first budget is passed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: TallBill
Will the deficit increase as a % compared to the GDP? That's the real question that matters.

That's always been disingenuous, at best. The notion that perpetual debt acquisition is acceptable so long as it's below a certain % of GDP is fool's gold...

I didn't say that it was acceptable, it's simply a better historic way to track the deficit.

Wait until you see the numbers come Oct 1, 2009- total federal debt acquisition fro FY2009 will likely be ~$1.5T.

That's the parting shot from the "small govt conservatives"- you know, the liars, cheats, thieves and charlatans who've been running the country for the last 8 years.

The fact that their candidate could still get 43% of the vote tells us just how far in denial the Faithful truly are...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: TallBill
Will the deficit increase as a % compared to the GDP? That's the real question that matters.

That's always been disingenuous, at best. The notion that perpetual debt acquisition is acceptable so long as it's below a certain % of GDP is fool's gold...

I didn't say that it was acceptable, it's simply a better historic way to track the deficit.

Wait until you see the numbers come Oct 1, 2009- total federal debt acquisition fro FY2009 will likely be ~$1.5T.

That's the parting shot from the "small govt conservatives"- you know, the liars, cheats, thieves and charlatans who've been running the country for the last 8 years.

The fact that their candidate could still get 43% of the vote tells us just how far in denial the Faithful truly are...

And guess what? Over the next 4 years you get the opportunity to display the same level of denial. Congrats!

 

[chess9]

Has Moonbeam ever been wrong? I don't think so....

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Most of the budget is locked in and will be for a long time unless there are major changes to Social Security, Medicare, Defense spending, Veteran's care (rising rapidly because of two wars), and a host of lesser issues such as energy and environmental issues. We also just spent $850 billion on a bailout.

So, I don't see the deficit going down in the next 4 years. Thank you George Bush and 12 years of Republican Congresses.

-Robert

 

[StageLeft]

Up but not super severely.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: chess9
Most of the budget is locked in and will be for a long time unless there are major changes to Social Security, Medicare, Defense spending, Veteran's care (rising rapidly because of two wars), and a host of lesser issues such as energy and environmental issues. We also just spent $850 billion on a bailout.

So, I don't see the deficit going down in the next 4 years. Thank you Lyndon Johnson

-Robert

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Obama's 4 year deficit will be higher than either of Bush's terms.

I'll take that bet, Weener

$ 10,624,730,227,798.25 - - Federal Debt with 70 days to go

$ 7,613,215,612,328.37 - - Federal Debt, January 20th, 2005


$ 3.012 trillion and counting to January 20, 2009


Just a little FYI, Weener. The annual operating deficit is probably around $300+ billion. Dubya's debt explosion will most likely lead to an increase in gross interest on the Federal Debt which was initially projected to exceed $600+ billion in FY2013.

Just another FYI, Weener. Even Dubya's projected budget cut Defense spending nearly 20% by FY2013.

So I will assume that we will hear no whining and complaining ...

 

[ModerateRepZero]

yeah i don't see it going down anytime soon, esp with so much nondiscretionary spending we're not going to cut anytime soon...

 

[Viditor]

It will go down a bit by the end of his first term...
The majority of the drop will be due to a substantial troop reduction overseas.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: TallBill
Will the deficit increase as a % compared to the GDP? That's the real question that matters.

That's always been disingenuous, at best. The notion that perpetual debt acquisition is acceptable so long as it's below a certain % of GDP is fool's gold...

I didn't say that it was acceptable, it's simply a better historic way to track the deficit.

Wait until you see the numbers come Oct 1, 2009- total federal debt acquisition fro FY2009 will likely be ~$1.5T.

That's the parting shot from the "small govt conservatives"- you know, the liars, cheats, thieves and charlatans who've been running the country for the last 8 years.

The fact that their candidate could still get 43% of the vote tells us just how far in denial the Faithful truly are...

And guess what? Over the next 4 years you get the opportunity to display the same level of denial. Congrats!

I doubt it, but there's only one way to find out- in 5 years, we can total up the debt accrued under the last 4 years of the Bush admin and under the first 4 years of the Obama admin, account for inflation, see what it looks like then.

I won't deny the numbers if they're true, but the mesmerized faithful are denying the ones that already exist, today, as if repubs have actually done what they promised, instead of engaging in the greatest looting spree in the history of the world...

You've been flummoxed, bamboozled and hornswaggled, shanghaied and sold down the river, but still believe in your brand, such as it is.

How about a pissant taxcut and an increase on your credit limit? Better? Good. Now go back to Lala land, OK?

 

[sandorski]

Obama's first year Deficit will be less than Half Bush's last year Deficit.

Mark my words.

 

[bozack]

I remember on NPR they had a few economic analysts weigh in before the election on the candidates and their spending plans...one that was openly for Obama had concluded that the deficit would go up considerably more under his plan and with the services he was promising than they would have under McCain, so I have little doubt that the country will be deeper in the hole with our new Pres Elect, especially if his own people feel that his policies and services will incur more debt.