Quantcast

2006 budget deficit to exceed 400 billion dollars

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Transcend said:
"If it comes to that" doesn't work in a case like this. It will get you down to 0 current annual deficit possibly..but guess what, now you owe tens of trillions of dollars + interest. Where exactly are those debt repayment funds going to come from?
We'll just hyperinflate the debt away.

See, easy solution. 21st century Americans are notorious for their ability to make sacrifices like that...
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
The problem with an out-of-control deficit is NOT world politics. It's a matter of domestic grays, not black-and-whites. It means we've weakened our ability for social services, weakened the buying power, weakened investment/savings and most importantly, weakened our ability to spend our way out of the next recession... meaning more unemployed.

What does an insane deficit mean to the USA...

big picture: it means the middle and lower class have a slightly lower level of living quality.

Small picture: more american citizens (thousands of people) will die and suffer needlessly due to the weakening social structure.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,147
796
Lima, Peru, Peru
BurlyShirley said:
I realize thats what the fear is, but that is not going to happen. I just wanted someone to say it. Going over budget has no effect on me as far as I can tell.
lol...

"thats not gonna happen".
there was a dude here and in brazil who thought exactly like you, deficit spending wouldnt hurt anybody...

in fact, for a few years it was the most awesomest thing in the universe... then 1987 came... 2000000% inflation in 5 years (i think brazil had one more million %)... the awesomeness!!!!!

both countries are very far apart.. but when your deficit is over 3%.... at some point the income/debt ratio will be unsustainable, then you´ll feel it hitting hard.....

are you sure it doesnt affect you? your buypower (independant of your income) is going down from what i see....
 

gschuette

Monkey
Sep 22, 2004
621
0
Truck
BuddhaRoadkill said:
Welfare is far cheaper than the police/military, and easier on the civil rights as well.

Perhaps, but the police and military are good and needed programs which is the complete opposite of welfare programs.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
gschuette said:
Perhaps, but the police and military are good and needed programs which is the complete opposite of welfare programs.
Okay Einstein, let's do some math. From the White House website...

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $67.2 billion

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $28.5 billion

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $11.5 billion

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

2006 Discretionary Budget Authority (with collections):
$33.4 billion

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $9.5 billion

All of which contain some form of welfare...their entire budget is NOT welfare programs. Your grand total from these depts is $150.1 billion.

For fun, lets estimate 50% goes to Welfare progs. This leaves you with about $75 billion to extract from the lower class.

Now, on the other hand, we have the military/intelligence/policing agencies:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $419.3 billion

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

2006 Discretionary Budget Authority (gross): $34.2 billion

Grand total? $453.5 billion.

Please back something up you say with fact, rather than "cutting all the welfare programs will solve our debt problem".
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
Burly, imagine your dollar being worth half of what is now. Anything you buy that wasn't made or grown in the US will cost twice as much. Your DVD player, your bike parts, your gasoline. The dollar becomes unstable to a point where it's no longer the trade currency of choice (already starting to happen, and we haven't even come close to what could occur if we don't start taking care of the current debt). The NYSE loses favor to Nikkei. Industry sand innovation grind to a halt as investment dollars dry up and move overseas to places with higher organic growth and more stability.

This is not a sky-is-falling worst case scenario. This is absolutely what will happen if we continue with the current trend. We rely on other countries more than you realize, and when they start to become concerned that we won't pay them back they WILL pull the plug.

While it seems obvious and you've stated you understand the economics, I feel the need to repeat them. You run up a credit card debt. It helps you float some rough times painlessly. You carry the balance a few months and keep paying the interest, but don't get rid of the balance. Then you buy some cool stuff because you can, but you add to the balance. Before you know it, you're using 10% of your paycheck just to pay off the interest, but the balance isn't getting any smaller. At this stage, most people would cut back and find a way to pay off that balance. Our government is not doing that. THIS would be the time. Cutting military and social programs? If we continue on this path for another two years, that won't be close to enough. You also seem to think we can just tell the rest of the world to F off, we're not paying the debt back. Much like you saying that to a credit card company, the result is bankruptcy. You can't get a mortgage, you can't buy a car. Except it's worse, because if you as an individual go bankrupt, you can still earn money and trade that with people for goods and services. You don't get isolated and need to figure out how to live as a subsistence farmer, which is essentially what would happen to our country.

I'm investing 75% of everything I put away overseas, in foreign currencies and developing markets. I don't feel bad about it. I would be irresponsible not to. I guarantee that I am not the only person doing this.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
ohio said:
Or you could pull a Bush and invade a country because they sell their oil for dollars AND Euros, and not just dollars...The Euro is quickly becoming a standard. I think that once there's enough Euros in foreign banks, the dollar will tank, as the creditors begin lining up, cause we can't just print more and hyperinflate...
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
ohio said:
Burly, imagine your dollar being worth half of what is now. Anything you buy that wasn't made or grown in the US will cost twice as much.
for the good of the planet, this isn't necessarily a bad thing,
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,976
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
One year's deficit isn't the biggest problem, the continued deficit is. Shrub II has run up about three trillion in debt during his time in office.

The US now owes something like 8 trillion dollars, about march we hit our debt ceiling, and spending is going to be cut, and it's going to hurt unless we add to the debt limit. During FY '05 we payed approximately $350 billion in interest. Interesting, that number is almost exactly the same size as the current deficit. 90% of the national debt was built up by Regan, Evil shrub I, and Evil Shrub II. Most of the remainder comes from Nixon and the Vietnam war.

China is one of the largest holders of US bonds, If they decide to dump bonds, the interest rate we have to pay goes up, way up. Instead of $350 billion a year, our interest payments might be $6oo billion. In our recent currency manipulation spat with China, I suspect the leverage of holding a huge amount of bonds help China immensely.
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,976
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
Public debt by year.

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 *
12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 *
12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 *
12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 *
12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 *
12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 *
12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70
12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00
12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95
12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26
12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41
12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91
12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18
12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68
12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04
12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38
12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17
12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27
12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92
12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
y'all keep worrying about another country dumping our bonds. Firstly, they'll take a loss, second, it's a global economy.

In other words, if you, as an individual have the ability to pay, even if deep in debt, you're financer isn't going to cut you off... that's bad business for him.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
LordOpie said:
y'all keep worrying about another country dumping our bonds. Firstly, they'll take a loss, second, it's a global economy.

In other words, if you, as an individual have the ability to pay, even if deep in debt, you're financer isn't going to cut you off... that's bad business for him.
Thats what I keep meaning to say, only Im bad with words.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
BurlyShirley said:
Thats what I keep meaning to say, only Im bad with words.
Yes, it is in their best interest to find a way to make us pay, but at some point they still stop extending credit (effectively, the actual process relates to the value of the dollar and the rates at which people are willing to purchase bonds) even IF we're paying back the debt. THAT'S what I'm trying to say. Even if we don't default, we're looking at a massivey devalued dollar, which would absolutely crush our standard of living, and, among other things, will mean a serious brain drain.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
ohio said:
Yes, it is in their best interest to find a way to make us pay, but at some point they still stop extending credit (effectively, the actual process relates to the value of the dollar and the rates at which people are willing to purchase bonds) even IF we're paying back the debt. THAT'S what I'm trying to say. Even if we don't default, we're looking at a massivey devalued dollar, which would absolutely crush our standard of living, and, among other things, will mean a serious brain drain.
But what I was getting at before is that I wont necessarily mind if the US ends up having to take a backseat in world politics (ie, superstrong military, foreign aid, etc) to compensate for what we'd be faced with...if it ever came to that.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
BurlyShirley said:
But what I was getting at before is that I wont necessarily mind if the US ends up having to take a backseat in world politics (ie, superstrong military, foreign aid, etc) to compensate for what we'd be faced with...if it ever came to that.
I'm not talking a backseat on the world political stage. I'm talking a backseat in standard of living. This could literally turn us into a 2nd world nation. Do you like electricity? Running water? An effective (at least somewhat) police force? Because if we don't start paying off this debt soon, our basic infrastructure will crumble when we finally do face the reality.
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,976
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
ohio said:
Yes, it is in their best interest to find a way to make us pay, but at some point they still stop extending credit (effectively, the actual process relates to the value of the dollar and the rates at which people are willing to purchase bonds) even IF we're paying back the debt. THAT'S what I'm trying to say. Even if we don't default, we're looking at a massivey devalued dollar, which would absolutely crush our standard of living, and, among other things, will mean a serious brain drain.

I haven't even begun on why the debt is bad, but you bring up another point. The dollar has lost a huge amount of it's value in relation to other currencies, particularly the Euro. If the huge debt, and imbalance of trade continues it won't be worth it to buy US bonds, unless the interest rate is high enough to counteract the falling currency. That could mean interest rates in the 15 to 20% range, or about a 1.5 trillion dollar interest payment, if anyone would even buy the bonds.


Imagine the draconian cuts necessary to live with that?
 

gschuette

Monkey
Sep 22, 2004
621
0
Truck
valve bouncer said:
Sheesh, kids don't need medicine. What are you some kind of pinko pansy or something?

It is not the government's responsibility to provide medicine to children. It is the parents. If the parents can not afford proper health care then they should not have children (don't even bring up abortion, there are a multitude of ways to keep from getting pregnant). The government did not make someone have a kid so why should they provide health care provided by taxpayers money?
 

DaveW

Space Monkey
Jul 2, 2001
11,160
2,685
The bunker at parliament
gschuette said:
It is not the government's responsibility to provide medicine to children. It is the parents. If the parents can not afford proper health care then they should not have children (don't even bring up abortion, there are a multitude of ways to keep from getting pregnant). The government did not make someone have a kid so why should they provide health care provided by taxpayers money?

The governments resposibility is to care for it's citizens regardless of their economic position. That's what you all pay taxes for......collectively provide that which you cannot individualy provide for yourselves.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
gschuette said:
It is not the government's responsibility to provide medicine to children. It is the parents. If the parents can not afford proper health care then they should not have children (don't even bring up abortion, there are a multitude of ways to keep from getting pregnant). The government did not make someone have a kid so why should they provide health care provided by taxpayers money?
Here's an idea: why don't you stop using public roads and start purifying your own water from the river. Tell you what, stay out of public parks while you're at it; you can mountain bike on land you bought yourself. Don't even get me started on schools and libraries. You sure as hell better have gone to private school and never read a book you or your parents didn't pay for.

edit: I just saw in another thread you go to SUU. Is that a state school?
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
ohio said:
edit: I just saw in another thread you go to SUU. Is that a state school?
Southern Utah University (Formerly college), land of ugly ducklings, morons, and Ditsy College transfer students.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
blue said:
Southern Utah University (Formerly college), land of ugly ducklings, morons, and Ditsy College transfer students.
The question was rhetorical. SUU is a state school and his education is heavily subsidized.

Gschuette, if your parents couldn't afford to send you to college, they shouldn't have had you. And instead of figuring out a way to pay for college on your own buck, with say loans, you're suckling the teat of big government who is using taxpayer money to support some school 99% of the taxpayers will never benefit from. Good for you.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,335
2,448
Hypernormality
gschuette said:
The government did not make someone have a kid so why should they provide health care provided by taxpayers money?
The government did not make you get hurt in any way so why should they provide hospitals at all? Grow up.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
gschuette said:
It is not the government's responsibility to provide medicine to children.
Actually, yes, it is.

You should take some basic politics courses at that state funded school you attend, you seem to be out of touch with reality.
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,976
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
gschuette said:
It is not the government's responsibility to provide medicine to children. It is the parents. If the parents can not afford proper health care then they should not have children (don't even bring up abortion, there are a multitude of ways to keep from getting pregnant). The government did not make someone have a kid so why should they provide health care provided by taxpayers money?

Government's responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of it's citizens. In a capitalist society you have to have a safety net for people who are disadvantaged, unemployed or disabled. I think a lot of people having kids shouldn't, but I'm not about to punish kids for their parents bad judgement, so farmers and industrialists can have more subsidies. Government is society, it's job is to do what individuals can't. Only the government can build a national highway systems, or enforce clean water standards.

The Constitution of the United States of America


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
gschuette said:
It is not the government's responsibility to provide medicine to children. It is the parents. If the parents can not afford proper health care then they should not have children (don't even bring up abortion, there are a multitude of ways to keep from getting pregnant). The government did not make someone have a kid so why should they provide health care provided by taxpayers money?
Ah, but the current government would just as soon make sure that no one knows how to keep from getting pregnant, with their abstinance only education and all that.
 

BuddhaRoadkill

I suck at Tool
Feb 15, 2004
988
0
Chintimini Bog
gschuette said:
Perhaps, but the police and military are good and needed programs which is the complete opposite of welfare programs.
I see your getting hammered already but my point has been missed.
Our system of economics requires a poverty class. If we take away government aid, that leaves a whole lot of people with zero means of support. They will be forced to take because they cannot earn. More police will be required to protect the haves from the have nots. The more police on the street the more corruption and civil rights will dissapear. This all spirals downward toward a full on police state. See any 3rd world country for historic examples. Be it wrong or right by what ever idealogy you subscribe to, welfare is by far the lesser evil.
 

gschuette

Monkey
Sep 22, 2004
621
0
Truck
BuddhaRoadkill said:
I see your getting hammered already

Yeah but it doesn't really matter. SUU might be a state school that receives government money. Most schools are the funded in the same manner. These people don't really know anything about how I go about paying for school or anything else for that matter. They can use their all or nothing welfare rhetoric and that's fine. It does go both ways. Communism is one example I can think of, a total welfare state. Why not? It is the governments responsibility to provide general welfare. Anyway it is just a political differnece. I am for a smaller government and they are for a bigger one. They disagree with me and that's fine.

I don't mind the government promoting general welfare with the aforementioned roads, schools, libraries, and so on. The problem I have is with the government throwing constantly throwing money at people who still refuse to go out and do something productive being they can rely on that government check.
 

gschuette

Monkey
Sep 22, 2004
621
0
Truck
I forgot to say that the only reason I came to SUU is because the riding and skiing around here is quite good. Not to mention the weather is amazing. I am never more than an hour away from warm weather in the winter and cool weather in the summer. Now if only I could do something about the nutcase locals and their very pushy religious antics.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
gschuette said:
The problem I have is with the government throwing constantly throwing money at people who still refuse to go out and do something productive being they can rely on that government check.
Because all people on welfare are lazy no-good-for-nothings that would rather get a subsistence check than be rich?
 

gschuette

Monkey
Sep 22, 2004
621
0
Truck
No. But there is a slippery slope dilemma. Where do you draw the line? You find an easy middle ground and you have done something no lawmaker has ever done. I say do away with it all. Most here would disagree with that but I, quite frankly, don't care.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
gschuette said:
Yeah but it doesn't really matter. SUU might be a state school that receives government money. Most schools are the funded in the same manner. These people don't really know anything about how I go about paying for school or anything else for that matter.
It doesn't matter how you pay for school, because the fact is they're only asking you for 1/3 of what they need to educate you. Whether you work to pay that 1/3 or not, you're receiving 2/3s of it as welfare.


gschuette said:
I am for a smaller government and they are for a bigger one. They disagree with me and that's fine.
I hear this one a lot. Actually where we disagree is on the definition of "big" government. "Big" government to me is bloated budget; someone has already pointed out that the Iraq War is costing us far more than every federal social program combined. We could trim a lot more big government by ending the war than by cutting welfare. Big government to me is a government encroaching on my rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, or right to privacy.

You see "big" government is any government you disagree with. Especially given that the current administration has spent more money and and created more bureacracy than any government in history, it's preposterous to think that the right is for "small" government and the left is for "big" government.

gschuette said:
The problem I have is with the government throwing constantly throwing money at people who still refuse to go out and do something productive being they can rely on that government check.
You mean like, say, giving you $8000 a year to educate yourself, while you instead just **** around and play all the time?
gschuette said:
I forgot to say that the only reason I came to SUU is because the riding and skiing around here is quite good.