Discussion: What do you think of this Federal Deficit Fact?

What number comes after a trillion? looks like we might as well find the number and get use to it. the Federal Deficit is in big trouble. is there really a trillion dollars anywhere on earth?

The only thing that troubles me is why we gave banks and wall street 700 billion, thats not typical government spending. Correct me if im wrong but isn’t that more than we’ve spent on the Iraq war.

@westy81585 Great points to use if facts mattered. @Ruallreb8ters No, the Iraq war is hovering at around $1 trillion, and most of the $700 billion has now been paid back. None of the $1 trillion for the war has.

@Ruallreb8ters, because the alternative was a lot worse, according to pretty much every single economist who has studied the Great Depression.

If we didn’t loan that money to the banks, banks would have had no money to loan to ordinary people and business owners. There are a huge number of businesses, such as almost all grocery stores, that operate entirely on such loans (most grocery stores take out loans from banks to buy food each week and pay it back when the stocks are sold).

No TARP loans to banks = no banks loaning money to businesses = no products to sell = no income for most people in America.

So if you were in charge, what would you do?

And by the way, most of that $700 billion has already been paid back with interest. It wasn’t a giveaway, it was a loan. (And we have spent more on the Iraq War, I believe… and not gotten any of it back.)

@Ruallreb8ters: You’re wrong: http://www.costofwar.com/

@john65pennington We won’t hit that number anywhere near our lifetimes. It would take 1000 trillion to reach 1 quadrillion (that’s the next one up), and our deficit is going to be 1.5 trillion, with the national debt around 14 trillion. And yes there’s that much money in the world, the US GDP last year was 14.4 trillion. (In other words if we didn’t spend any money for an entire year, we’d make 400 billion dollars…...... now if only that were even remotely possible :( )

CORRECTION… I just looked it up, the US GDP in 2009 was 14.27 trillion, not 14.4.

@qigu I see that it is over 700 billion thats been spent on the Iraq war, not by much and I in no way think thats a good thing. But my point is, half the trouble were in in because the government sibsidized low income loans leading to the housing maket collapse. I just think the gov. should stay out of what the market can easly correct.

@Ruallreb8ters No the reason we’re in this is because the market, in it’s infinite wisdom and limitless ability to fix problems… decided it would be a good idea to give people mortgages they couldn’t begin to afford, leading to forclosures and a lack of payments to those banks, leading to a string of bank failures and an economic collapse.

The government SAVED the market, by taking the responsibility off of the banks, paying them back the money the people owed them, and then giving the people low interest/long term loans so they could pay it back over time. Essentially, the market is as good as it is right now, because the government took a kick in the nuts for it.

Here’s another salient debt fact. As @westy81585 pointed out, our national debt is yet to reach 100% of Gross Domestic Product. In 1945 after the New Deal spending to get out of the depression and the spending to fight WWII, it was 120% of GDP. Looking at debt as a percentage of GDP gets factoring for inflation out of the way. We were deeper in debt then. And we paid it down. When Ronald Reagan took office, it was 30% of GDP. But he slashed taxes on the top income brackets from 70% to 28% and tripled the national debt. Taxes have been kept artificially low and debt has been piling on ever since.

@john65pennington
There is never anywhere near as much physical money in circulation as there is on the books. Because of fractional reserve banking, loans and other instruments of debt increases the money on the books which makes it virtually impossible to accurately gauge this number.

@westy81585 you should research what actually happend, the bush administration subsidized those morgages, it wasn’t the market. And they did it top “fix” the economy

@Ruallreb8ters You are right that the Bush administration pushed the sub-prime market. It helped stack up the house of cards and make it seem like the economy was doing fine when it was really riding on nothing but hot air.

But the sub-prime market was NOT the cause of the bubble. It was the tiny pin that burst it. Sub-prime loans represent less than 15% of the loans in default. Most of the sub-prime loans were due to a wild spate of predatory lending in which bankers told gullible people they could handle loans the bankers knew would go into default. They hoped the market would go up forever, they would foreclose, extract the equity the poor sucker had put into the home, then sell it again for even more money.

The real killer wasn’t sub-prime loans. Well heeled speculators and people using their home equity to fund a massive buying orgy made up 85% of the bubble. It was repackaging and leveraging of derivative securities that made the bubble worth building. The poor did not have the investment depth to have extracted well over 6 trillion dollars overnight from the markets.

@ETpro thanks for the better discription

The Republicans are making a concerted effort to impose their selective amnesia about the Reagan and Bush deficits on the public, and unfortunately, they are succeeding. The usual argument goes, “well, that doesn’t matter, because Obama owns it now.” The enlightened can see the logical fallacy in that statement, but most people can’t – and it leads to the next fallacy, “Therefore, it’s Obama’s fault.” And that’s the party litany right now.

@IchtheosaurusRex
Yes of course it’s what the Republicans always do. It’s not that they are being intractable now in Congress either. It’s because Obama is a Socialist. Like Rush Limbaugh, he really doesn’t want the president to fail, he just doesn’t want him to succeed. The amazing thing is that people buy it at all, but many swallow it hook line and sinker.

@Ruallreb8ters, can you cite a single economist who would agree with your claim that the government’s subsidies for low-income home owners caused the problem?

That’s not a fact, it’s a right wing talking point. The causes of the bubble are complex and have much more to do with the risky behavior of financial institutions, which should have been regulated.

@SeventhSense If Obama’s a socialist, I’m a Panda. Go read a history book, followed by a social studies book, then come back and play.

@westy81585
Go buy a clue. You missed the sentiment of my statement. I was saying the opposite.
do i always have to use a tilde?

@SeventhSense Yes, yes you do :) ( my apologies)

@SeventhSense , you’ll probably find this enlightening:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832988/-The-2010-Comprehensive-Daily-Kos-Research-2000-Poll-of-Self-Identified-Republicans

Now, most free thinkers should take Daily Kos with a grain or two of salt, but the poll seems legit and the commentary is funny as hell.

@IchtheosaurusRex
I don’t put much weight in polls. They are too easily manipulated and people are too mercurial.
During the height of the Clinton Lewinsky affair a poll showed out of 200,000 that 73% wanted him impeached. A later that week poll by NBC/Wall street Journal poll of 2,000 showed that changed to 34%.
A Bush Poll by MSNBC showed that 89% of almost ¾ of a million people wanted him impeached. This may have been more damning than any I’ve seen but again many Republicans won’t visit MSNBC.
It’s too easy to attract a particular audience to respond based on the format and also the parameters can be expanded- i.e.-adding numbers until the arrived at result is met or original results are watered down. It’s extremely difficult to remove a sitting president as noted with Nixon. Every change of the guard is met by those who would impeach.
Clinton was brilliant at bringing together disparate voices among his own and amongst other members of Congress. I can only imagine what he could do with this Congress. Obama is not the politician that Bill is…perhaps to his credit in some regards but certainly not when it comes to working across the aisle. Getting the Republicans on board is like pulling a big fat fish out from among the rocks. They may rise and take the bait but once they retreat to their entrenched positions it’s very hard to get them to move.

@SeventhSense I dunno that it’s necessarily he’s less of a politician than Bill…. But more the fault that Republicans are so anti-everything Obama that they’d vote down the cure to cancer if he was supporting it.

@westy81585
Oh he is definitely nowhere near the politician that Bill was. Bill was smooth. Obama’s too straightforward and bristling and has way too much of a chip on his shoulder. You can sense it from his body language he’s holding on too tight to an image. I can certainly sympathize with him though. He is in a very difficult position from both a social, economic and political position.

@SeventhSense , it wasn’t for nothing they called him Slick Willy, but I think you’re underestimating Obama. Clinton did not face the same kind of opposition. His enemies worked in the shadows, tried to nail him with a witch hunt. Obama’s is trying to start another civil war; that is a lot more direct and it’s doing a lot more damage to the country. I think he’s made it clear he’s had enough, and I’m glad of it. It’s helped his polling numbers, not by a lot, but enough to push him back over 50%. I think he’s right to rear up and fight his detractors head-on. He’s made enough of an effort to get bipartisanship, but I think he realizes he’s not going to get anywhere with that approach.

No he will get nowhere by dividing the country and the party. There is far too much backing behind the Republican party and besides it’s not in the interest of anyone to disrespect 50% of the country. It’s not a game. It’s our collective future. The Republicans didn’t win anything by creating a mess of the country and ignoring us and likewise we won’t do anything by continuing that sentiment reversed.

@SeventhSense , Obama hasn’t divided the country. The Republicans decided on that course of action before he took the oath of office. I don’t know if you remember one of the first pieces of legislation enacted after Obama was sworn in – an extension of the time allocated for the DTV switchover. The House Republicans voted unanimously against it. This wasn’t health care; there wasn’t anything really at stake in terms of the budget, good reasons for the delay, and no significant down side. They did it as a symbolic show of unity in opposition to Obama and the Democratic majority.

The only bills in Congress that get any air time are the big ones, like the Recovery Act and the health care bill. If you look more closely at how Congress has operated since Obama took office, you’ll see a clear and significant pattern of obstructionism. We all saw Sotomayor confirmed without a filibuster attempt, but lesser judicial appointments have been held up routinely. Senate Republicans even held up the vote on defense appropriations to slow down business on the health bill. They are in this for blood, and Obama would be wasting his time trying to reach a compromise with them.

He has bigger problems with his own party. More on that here. He needs to drag Nancy Pelosi into the Oval Office and give her the talk. He might be wasting his time with Reid, since he’s probably going to be out of office next year, but he needs to bust some heads in the Senate, too. Fuck the Republicans, fuck the filibuster, get legislation through on Reconciliation. It’s the only thing that will save the country, not to mention the Democrats, in the long run.

@IchtheosaurusRex
I only wish it was so simple. Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson are probably playing golf right now. For a true Democratic statesman look to Lyndon Johnson, he could deliver “the treatment” with a velvet glove.

LBJ was probably the most effective POTUS we’ve ever had at punching through legislation. More effective than FDR, even. But LBJ had some huge advantages that Obama doesn’t have. Sam Rayburn. Nelson Rockefeller. And having been Senate Majority Leader for many years probably didn’t hurt him, either.

Also not hurting LBJ was that he enjoyed a majority in the mid to upper 60’s in the senate for the majority of his term.

I’m hoping this new strategy of calling the Republicans out on their clear obstructionism will work. Like how Obama is taking some moderate stances on things, and giving Republicans actual things they have been pushing for, and now the Republicans are voting no to them. What was the bill that was SPONSORED by 7 senate Republicans including McConnel, who then voted the bill down when Obama got behind it?

They don’t care about the country, they care about making Obama look bad.

@IchtheosaurusRex
But that’s exactly what it’s about. It doesn’t happen on the floor of the senate or from public displays. It happens behind closed door meetings and with significant relationships. I could never be one because it’s not in me but I can recognize those gifted in this regards. The best politician is like an excellent salesman. You smile so much and like him so well you don’t even realized you’ve signed the paper.

@IchtheosaurusRex Fuck the Republicans, fuck the filibuster, get legislation through on Reconciliation. It’s the only thing that will save the country, not to mention the Democrats, in the long run. Amen on that. If they want to filibuster, at least make them get up day after day and read the New York telephone directory. After 20 bills being stalled that way, the news coverage of it would start to sink into the heads of even the dullest voters out there. Here I am worrying about how to put food on the table and keep a roof over my head, and all the Republican Party can do for me is make sure NOTHING gets done.

Fuck anyone and we’re all fucked

So much swearing!

@westy81585 , my bad for starting it, but it’s hard for me to talk about those assholes, er, the Republicans in Congress, without swearing.

@ETpro , Obama had a meeting with Democratic senators on Wednesday. It was less entertaining than his meeting with the House Republicans, but he did go at them about the filibuster and the senseless holdups of judicial appointments. This has been a problem since the Clinton years, which gave rise to this 15-year-old editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/01/opinion/time-to-retire-the-filibuster.html

The Democrats could, at least in theory, do away with it altogether. This is called the Nuclear Option. Ironically, it was the Republicans who last threatened to invoke it – over Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial appointees. It was averted through a rare bipartisan agreement that appears to have been forgotten by this Senate. Maybe it’s time to haul it out again, although the lame duck session is probably where you do it, presuming the Dems maintain control of Congress.

@IchtheosaurusRex
You’re pushing me away from the party and towards their camp and I’m a Democrat.

I think your cure for a lot of our governments problems, are new parties. Not eliminating the old ones or anything, but add at least a 3rd party… And as many as 5 imo. Both parties have reached a big tent point, and they’re both trying to unite everyone together by portraying the other guys as the “enemy” ...... That’s not the answer, that’s a one way ticket to trouble.

Good cop/bad cop, vanilla/chocolate..where does it end without some new branches on this tree?

@westy81585 , third parties have come and gone throughout U.S. history. The only successful one – in terms of electing people to major public office – were the Whigs, formed in opposition to Andrew Jackson’s policies. They faded away before the Civil War. More recently, Ross Perot made a serious attempt to break the system in 1992. He came away with 18% of the popular vote – and no electors. Like it or not, you get to choose only between the lesser of two evils.

@SeventhSense , I find it remarkable that I could have such a profound influence on you. Maybe it’s because I’m in my 60s and I’ve been watching those guys fuck up the country since the Nixon years. Go join them if you must, but when the guy in the red suit with the barbs on his head asks you to sign the contract, don’t use your own blood.

@IchtheosaurusRex I’m aware of the history of third parties in our country (though to be fair, prior to the Jackson era, the Democratic and Republican parties as they exist now, didn’t exist at all. And we had parties like the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans).

I’m also aware that it is unfortunately probably not going to change anytime soon. Everytime one party fractures enough to lead to a possible new party, they realize that this will just give power to the other party. Like the Tea Party thing, I think that there are enough people that they could form an actual party. But the more moderates in the movement realized that doing so would fracture the Republican party and leave Democrats in total control, so they came back to the Republican party leaving just the very fringe to the Tea party.

The only way you’ll see something with new parties is if BOTH parties fracture at once.

@westy81585 , the Tea Partiers think they’re a grassroots movement, but they really aren’t. The Republican establishment are using them the way Reagan used the Moral Majority. In time, they will become as much of a liability to them. Probably a short time, but they’ll take anything they can get to win even one election.

I find it remarkable that I could have such a profound influence on you. Maybe it’s because I’m in my 60s and I’ve been watching those guys fuck up the country since the Nixon years.
I’m a democrat but it’s not so simple. LBJ entered on a platform of fear and escalated the Vietnam war but created strong programs for the poor and was a champion of civil rights. Nixon was a paranoid megalomaniac who was an exceptional diplomat. Ford was basically dead wood. Carter was ineffectual and a political dud but was a fine man at heart and mediated peace between Egypt and Israel. Reagan was an insider and caused spontaneous hard ons among young Republicans and caused little old ladies to feel flush with the vapors. Whatever their platform, the Reps always build up the military and the Dems build up social services. Occasionally we get a home run like Bill who does it all.

@IchtheosaurusRex I think you are exactly right on that. The Republican party cut their first deal with the devil back when Kennedy and LBJ embraced Civil RIghts and actually did something about it. Few Americans today remember that until that time, Civil Rights had always been a Republican issue and the South was solidly Democratic, albeit a strange breed of Democrat dubbed Dixiecrats. When the Democratic Party in Washington turned against the DIxiecrats, the KKK sorts of the South wanted a new home. Deal-with-the-Devil one was adopting an undertone of racism and abandoning the cause of equality.

They came the Moral Majority and their judgementalism that is so un-Christian, in fact deeply anti-Christ. Deal-with-theDevil number two.

This new Devil embraces the racism and judgmentalism and caries it a step further toward a desire for permanent, right-wing rule—fascism. This is a most dangerous Devil, and when you deal with the Devil he will always demand his due.