america in dept

[Vault-Tech]

i was watching cnn and it said america is 7 trillion dollars in dept and most of it is because of george bush correct me if im wrong.

[chemchok]

i was watching cnn and it said america is 7 trillion dollars in dept and most of it is because of george bush correct me if im wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He contributed to that 7 trillion dollars of debt, but IMO, I tend to think the immediate economic situation at any point in time is not within the control of a president. We would also have trillions of dollars of debt if Gore was in office now, Nader for that matter too. Besides the global economy and its vagaries, members of congress from the far right to the far left are usually more concerned with appropriating as much money for their representatives than balancing the budget.

[Vault-Tech]

maybe 2 trillion or 3 but not 7.

[chemchok]

*shrugs* I don't know, I'm not an economics professor, doubt they would know either. However, I don't think the current war in Iraq, or the resucitated missile defense program have helped that much. Different aspects of the tax breaks are questionable too. Just remember that Democrats and Republicans love to spend money with equal fervor and both parties will take credit for or disown themselves from fiscal trends.

[taks]

probably the largest cause of the "debt" is the fact that the dollar has fallen w.r.t. other currencies, i.e. our currency is not worth as much against our loans as it used to be... actual budget information can be obtained online, but the whole 7 trillion dollar number isn't real debt created by the administration...

 

if i get a chance, i'll look it up.

 

taks

[Enoch]

Well, most of that debt was pre-existing before Bush took office. Deficits (debt is the running totat of the yearly deficits, plus interest) have been standard fare since the 50's, but they really started getting bad during the Reagan administration (Reagan wanted and got lower taxes and more defense $, but Congress stopped him from slashing social programs). The numbers recovered with the boom in the 90s (helped along by Clinton's tax increase on millionaires).

 

The Bush admin's policies have brought back some seriously huge deficits deficits ($700 billion/yr or so). The Bushies blame it all on the weak economy (and 9/11), but it's mostly due to their tax cuts.

[Product of the Cosmos]

There are millions of variables and affects, and I am no expert in this by any means.

 

But Reagan BushI and BushII went ape**** in office. lol. They have a lot to do with it IMO.

[taks]

not true enoch... since taking office, bush has increased the debt by $500B total, not $700B/year... the tax cuts are only a few hundred total so far, and not really the majority. an increase of spending on entitlements is a biggie (medicare prescription drugs) as well as the war monies. overall, the debt held by the public is $3.9 trillion, up from $3.4 at the end of clinton's term.

 

as a percentage of GDP, it actually peaked during clinton's 1st year in office at 49.5% (49.4% his 2nd, which was his budget plan...) he did get it down to a modest 35% by the end of his two terms and it now sits at 36.1%.

 

credit where credit is due, clinton did manage to get into the black on spending. HOWEVER, keep in mind he had a republican congress which pretty much created a stalemate on any spending he wished to implement. had he and the first lady had their way, we'd have been saddled by government supplied health care which would have wiped out his reductions...

 

in short order, the numbers may seem staggering, but they really aren't that much worse than they've ever been. $500B today is not the same as $500B ten years ago...

 

the CBO has this information, btw...

 

taks

[taks]

There are millions of variables and affects, and I am no expert in this by any means.

 

  But Reagan BushI and BushII went ape**** in office. lol.  They have a lot to do with it IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

again, not true. the numbers can easily be found at the CBO. bush sr. and clinton are by far the worst offenders since deficit spending began...

 

before you make such rash statements, PoTC, you should check to verify your numbers. i've discussed this with you before, yet somehow you still fail to grasp the concept that true objective analysis requires true investigation of all the facts.

 

it took me less than a minute to get this information. rather than spout rhetoric, i choose to cite facts.

 

taks

[Enoch]

not true enoch... since taking office, bush has increased the debt by $500B total, not $700B/year... the tax cuts are only a few hundred total so far, and not really the majority.  an increase of spending on entitlements is a biggie (medicare prescription drugs) as well as the war monies.  overall, the debt held by the public is $3.9 trillion, up from $3.4 at the end of clinton's term. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're right about the deficit numbers. Sorry- it's rather late here and I'm getting foggy in the head.

 

I stand by my assertion that most of the damage was done by the tax cuts, though. Because so many of them were set to phase in over time, the existing numbers don't yet show their full impact. But they're a main reason why the future budget projections look very grim (unless you assume ridiculously rosy growth forecasts).

 

A linky.

[taks]

I stand by my assertion that most of the damage was done by the tax cuts, though.  Because so many of them were set to phase in over time, the existing numbers don't yet show their full impact.

A linky.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually, if you want to talk "real" numbers there's several factors. the biggest is the slump in the economy which is partly why clinton had such a boon. the over-inflated economy due to the tech craze (dot com galore) created higher than expected revenues... they immediately dropped after the "bubble" hit and we're currently at $1.7 trillion vs. $2.02 trillion in 2000. in 2001, BEFORE the tax cuts, we actually dropped to $1.9 trillion... i.e, spending increases were about the same

(an extra $80B that year) yet we actually had a $100B drop in revenues INSTEAD OF an expect $100B+ increase in revenues... not much we could have done there.

 

the tax increases have dropped some of our revenues, but the resulting recession was even worse.

 

anyway, blaming the current situation "mostly" on the tax cuts is disingenuous, i.e. not telling the whole story.

 

taks

[Cantousent]

You know, Ironically, my wife and I have less debt than in the 90s but our savings, investments, and retirement have grown more slowly. Now, part of that is due to the fact that I was working in the 90s and have since returned to school. Part of it that our dollar doesn't seem to stretch as far. Still, our investments have grown far more slowly because stocks are no longer sky rocketing. At least that's my take. I'm not an economist.

 

BTW: the tax cuts didn't result in the recession. Since the recession was underway before the tax cuts took effect, I would say the tax cuts are clearly not the cause. I don't think you meant it to come across that way, but that's how it sounds.

[taks]

the tax cuts were clearly a RESULT of the recession, but i don't think enoch is arguing that... he's arguing them as a primary cause of the deficit (well, increase in deficit). the cuts were implemented as a hope of getting us out of a recession. we're out of the recession, for sure, but why is where the debate fodder lies.

 

investments are back to slow growth, but the extreme gains of the 90s were very abnormal. there was plenty of "imaginary" capital created due to the hype of the tech craze. all that money that was lent out to startups and dot-coms will NEVER be paid back, ergo, false capital. the US economy and tax base was the primary beneficiary. the dollar isn't really worth that much less, at least not in the traditional sense, simply because inflation has been in the 1% range for a while. unfortunately, some of the items that people notice are much more expensive (property)... nobody notices that milk costs only a dime or so more than it did 4 years ago...

 

taks

[EnderAndrew]

I figure that people might want to actually look at numbers.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html

 

Some of them are quite surprising.

[taks]

I figure that people might want to actually look at numbers.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html

 

Some of them are quite surprising.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, i already pointed them to the CBO, and enoch provided a link. the whitehouse numbers are usually proposed, the CBO numbers are actuals and a bit easier to decipher.

taks

[EnderAndrew]

These numbers show actual budgets from 2000 on, and the proposed numbers for the next few years.