US to run 1.6 TRILLION Deficit - Holy Christ

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,067
4,010
113
Obama's budget includes record deficit

$3.83 trillion in spending, $1.56-trillion deficit

U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled a nearly $4-trillion-US budget on Monday that includes a spending freeze on some programs but will leave the government with a record-breaking deficit.

The proposed budget, which needs approval from Congress, would provide billions of dollars for job-creation measures and tax breaks, partly offset by tax hikes on high-income earners.

According to the proposed $3.83-trillion budget, the U.S. deficit will swell to $1.56 trillion this year, surpassing last year's deficit of $1.41 trillion, and America will be saddled with trillion-dollar-plus deficits for three years.

This follows the $787-billion stimulus passed in February 2009 and a decrease in tax revenues because of the economic downturn.

'We can’t simply move beyond this crisis. We have to address the irresponsibility that led to it.'
—President Barack ObamaObama blamed the previous administration and Congress for fiscal mismanagement, saying that on the day he entered office he was already contending with a $1.3-trillion deficit.

As well, he faced an economic crisis and had to take steps that carried "significant costs" and added to the deficit.

'Save where we can'
"We can’t simply move beyond this crisis. We have to address the irresponsibility that led to it, and that includes the failure to rein in spending, as well as reliance on borrowing," Obama said. "We have to do what families across America are doing — save where we can so that we can afford what we need."

To tackle the deficit, Obama proposed a three-year freeze on spending for many domestic government agencies beginning in 2011. He stressed that this won't apply to national security spending and to Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare benefits.

Obama said his administration has so far identified $20 billion in cuts — an amount critics have dismissed, considering the size of the overall budget.

Link:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/01/obama-budget.html
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,067
4,010
113
I have got to wonder if either he is that stupid, or there is something going on that we are being kept in the dark about.

This would be like Canada running a 160 billion defit.

20 billion in cuts is a joke. Not touching the biggies - Social Security, or the military, or having the balls to bring in legislation to control Health Care Spending (well I guess he tried there.)

I can't believe what I am seeing, it's like they deliberately want to bankrupt the country.
 

Malibook

New member
Nov 16, 2001
4,613
2
0
Paradise
www.yourtraveltickets.com
US unfunded liabilities of $107 trillion equals $347k per person.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/#


60 Minutes-The Housing Collapse of 2010 Will Be Worse Than 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kunB4SnAh4g

Watchdog: Bailout Only Worsens U.S. Money Crisis
TARP Head Neil Barofsky Warns Nation Could Be Headed Off A Cliff

The government's response to the financial crisis has made it more likely the United States will face a greater meltdown in the future, an independent watchdog at the Treasury Department warned in a new report.

The problems that led to the last crisis have not yet been addressed, and in some cases have grown worse, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the trouble asset relief program, or TARP. The quarterly report to Congress was released Sunday.

"Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car," Barofsky wrote.

Since Congress passed $700 billion financial bailout, the remaining institutions considered "too big to fail" have grown larger and failed to restrain the lavish pay for their executives, Barofsky wrote. He said the banks still have an incentive to take on risk because they know the government will save them rather than bring down the financial system.

Barofsky also said his office is investigating 77 cases of possible criminal and civil fraud, including crimes of tax evasion, insider trading, mortgage lending and payment collection, false statements and public corruption.

One case concerns apparent self-dealing by one of the private fund managers Treasury picked to buy bad assets from banks at discounted prices. A portfolio manager at the firm apparently sold a bond out of a private fund, then repurchased it at a higher price for a government-backed fund. A rating agency had just downgraded the bond, so it likely was worth less, not more, when the government fund bought it. The company is not being named pending the outcome of Barofsky's investigation.

Barofsky renewed a call for Treasury to enact clearer walls so that such apparent conflicts are less likely.

Treasury said it welcomed Barofsky's oversight but resisted the call to erect new barriers against conflicts of interest. The new rules "would be detrimental to the program," Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in a statement. The existing compliance rules "are a rigorous and effective method of protecting taxpayers," she said.

Much of Barofsky's report focused on the government's growing role in the housing market, which he said has increased the risk of another housing bubble.

Over the past year, the federal government has spent hundreds of billions propping up the housing market. About 90 percent of home loans are backed by government controlled entities, mainly Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The Federal Reserve is spending $1.25 trillion to hold down mortgage rates, and millions of homeowners have refinanced at lower rates.

"The government has stepped in where the private players have gone away," Barofsky said in an interview. "If we take government resources and replace that market without addressing the serious (underlying) concerns, there really is a risk of" artificially pushing up home prices in the coming years.

The report warned that these supports mean the government "has done more than simply support the mortgage market, in many ways it has become the mortgage market, with the taxpayer shouldering the risk that had once been borne by the private investor."

Barofsky's report echoed concerns raised by housing experts in recent months, as home sales and prices rebounded. They warn that the primary reason for the turnaround last year has been billions of dollars in federal spending to lower mortgage rates and prop up demand.

Once that spigot of cash is turned off, they caution, the market will be vulnerable to a dramatic turn for the worse. Daniel Alpert, managing partner of investment bank Westwood Capital, wrote in a report that national home prices are bound to fall 8 to 10 percent below the lows of last spring.

"The lion's share of the remaining decline will occur in markets that saw sizable bubbles but have not yet retrenched," he wrote.

Officials from the Obama administration counter that massive federal intervention has helped the housing market stabilize and prevented more dire consequences.

Barofsky's report also disclosed that, while the Obama administration has pledged to spend $75 billion to prevent foreclosures, only a tiny fraction — just over $15 million — has been spent so far. Under the Making Home Affordable program, only about 66,500 borrowers, or 7 percent of those who signed up, had completed the process as of December.

He said the key to preventing future crises is to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, create and improve loan underwriting and supervision of banks. He stopped short of endorsing specific proposals for overhauling financial regulation, but said many of the proposals would go far to improving the system.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,779
118
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
You'll notice a lack of whinging from the same news organizations in the US that reported breathlessly about Bush running deficits of 400B....

You'll notice, if you look at the polling that jobs and deficit are the two highest concerns of voters... hence the results recently.

OTB
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,067
4,010
113
You're using George Bush as some sort of model to be followed? Are you serious? Bush was a moron - running 4 and 5 hundred billion dollar deficits in supposed good times. Bush should have been reducing the deficit, instead he doubled the debt in 8 years.

But getting back on track, what will this do to the value of the US dollar and what concerns me is that there is no long term plan to actually reduce the deficit and the debt. The Americans keep kidding themselves that they can grow themselves out of debt but this doesn't appear to be the case now.

The don't want to increase taxes and they don't want to cut spending. It's insane.

As to the election results, Americans are no longer voting FOR a candidate, they are voting them out.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,779
118
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
You're using George Bush as some sort of model to be followed? Are you serious? Bush was a moron - running 4 and 5 hundred billion dollar deficits in supposed good times. Bush should have been reducing the deficit, instead he doubled the debt in 8 years.

But getting back on track, what will this do to the value of the US dollar and what concerns me is that there is no long term plan to actually reduce the deficit and the debt. The Americans keep kidding themselves that they can grow themselves out of debt but this doesn't appear to be the case now.

The don't want to increase taxes and they don't want to cut spending. It's insane.

As to the election results, Americans are no longer voting FOR a candidate, they are voting them out.
I think you should read my post again, it was only two sentences, should not be that hard to follow.

I commented on how different the press coverage is, how the poll numbers look and what the election trends are......

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,958
5,792
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
You're using George Bush as some sort of model to be followed? Are you serious? Bush was a moron - running 4 and 5 hundred billion dollar deficits in supposed good times. Bush should have been reducing the deficit, instead he doubled the debt in 8 years.
LOL!
And bottie proudly proclaimed this was Dubya, delivering real economic performance!....:D
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,978
5,588
113
LOL!
And bottie proudly proclaimed this was Dubya, delivering real economic performance!....:D
That was then, now is now. OTB lately proclaimed that the president has very little impact on
the economy.

LOL
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
I have got to wonder if either he is that stupid, or there is something going on that we are being kept in the dark about.

This would be like Canada running a 160 billion defit.

20 billion in cuts is a joke. Not touching the biggies - Social Security, or the military, or having the balls to bring in legislation to control Health Care Spending (well I guess he tried there.)

I can't believe what I am seeing, it's like they deliberately want to bankrupt the country.
Yes it’s nuts.

As to health care costs - no "the plan" really didn't address that, there is widespread support for it, and if they had worked on concrete aspects of health care in the U.S. there would have popular support.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,958
5,792
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
That was then, now is now. OTB lately proclaimed that the president has very little impact on
the economy.

LOL
LOL!
You mean bottie is doing that Flip-Flop thingy?.....:eek:
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,779
118
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
That was then, now is now. OTB lately proclaimed that the president has very little impact on
the economy.

LOL
I've said that for years.

My often quoted signature was a taunt based on some (among them Pekkkr) talking about "Clinton's economic performance" to which my typical response was that I had more to do with the US economy in the 90s than Clinton did (Gore is another story if you believe the whole "I invented the internet" thing)

OTB

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,779
118
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Change you can believe in. lol

BTW, Obama, can you print me a couple of billion while you're at it?
Only if you make less than 250k.... then you're one of the good guys, those who make a decent income and are paying a lions share of the taxes, they're the bad guys.....

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,779
118
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
They simply will not grow out of it. More and more manufacturing jobs will continue to move out of the Country. Their tax system is not favorable to large Corporations, especially when they talk about taxing wealth. It would be better for them to reform their current tax system from an income tax based model to a flat sales tax type model. Give people and corporations more money to spend and what do you think they will do? Spend more. It will also eliminate the IRS from hunting down small business owners and illegal aliens that don't pay any taxes by collecting taxes based on what they spend.

The US dollar will continue to lose value, it might gain some momentum late this year moving into early 2011, but with this type of spending they are just digging a deeper hole every minute.

Word of advice...start thinking about buying the Chinese yuan, before you know it the yuan will be the new World currency!
Isn't the Yuan tied to the US dollar?

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,958
5,792
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Only if you make less than 250k.... then you're one of the good guys, those who make a decent income and are paying a lions share of the taxes, they're the bad guys.....

OTB
Does your tongue ever tire from all that boot licking?.....:p
 

FOOTSNIFFER

New member
Jan 23, 2004
1,506
0
0
They simply will not grow out of it. More and more manufacturing jobs will continue to move out of the Country. Their tax system is not favorable to large Corporations, especially when they talk about taxing wealth. It would be better for them to reform their current tax system from an income tax based model to a flat sales tax type model. Give people and corporations more money to spend and what do you think they will do? Spend more. It will also eliminate the IRS from hunting down small business owners and illegal aliens that don't pay any taxes by collecting taxes based on what they spend.

The US dollar will continue to lose value, it might gain some momentum late this year moving into early 2011, but with this type of spending they are just digging a deeper hole every minute.

Word of advice...start thinking about buying the Chinese yuan, before you know it the yuan will be the new World currency!
Yes, you can now do so with the chinese Yuan ETF (CYD..stock symbol). Really, you must diversify away from the US dollar...even the Brazilian Real is better now.

I really don't like what I'm seeing in the political situation in the USA at all. Those idiots in Congress won't cut expenditures, nor will they deal seriously with the impending problems with entitlement spending ( the GOP nixed plans to establish a panel to produce a report to reduce government spending...they even declared that they would refuse to participate should the president establish one thru an edict). Manufacturing share of the economy down there is down to only 8% while they're piling up insane levels of net indebtedness to the rest of the world (currently at 3.6 trillion....assets owned by americans overseas, less those owned by foreigners in the US). Since the americans earn a greater return on their assets overseas, most of which are shares in real businesses, than foreigners earn on their assets in the US, most of which are lower yielding Treasuries, there hasn't been as of yet any real reduction in living standards imposed on the Yanks...Yet. I see absolutely zero appreciation in the political realm of the real trouble that the americans are just about to face.
The competition is no longer in flames or on their knees, as in the 50s and 60s. I don't even know why a chinese or Indian would want to settle in the slow growth US after they receive their education rather than returning to the exciting opportunities in their homelands

It reminds me of the deficit troubles that Canada faced during the 1980s....if you remember Solange Denis, the pensioner from Quebec who embarrassed Mulroney who had tryed to address the growing crisis in public finances in the 1986 budget, when he attempted to restrict the growth of the Canada pension benefits by fiddling with the cost of living adjustment. Only during the early 90s mini-recession did we finally face the music, when the Feds were so strapped that they weren't able to provide any help to the foundering economy....only then did Canadians begin a ten year period of sacrifice that wrestled the deficit to the ground. We suffered through a lost decade of sub-par growth ( there was a reason why our dollar dropped to only 0.62 US). The americans are going to have to live through something similar.
 
Toronto Escorts