Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

NATIONAL DEBT passes 18 trillion

+3
boards of FL
gatorfan
KarlRove
7 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 4]

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:We saw the train slowing prior to the economic downturn too. It's kinda funny how things like that happen huh? The dot com crash... 9/11... housing bubble... but you're full excuses for only the dem watch. You have no credibility.

I didn't like the policies after the mess bush2 walked into either. See how that works? I didn't think so.


The train was shifting to reverse until Bush cut taxes, engaged in two wars, and passed a medicare prescription drug plan. But you're right, it started to apply the breaks...up until it went into full blown acceleration.

Bush 2 walked into an economy taking a regular business cycle breather after an unprecedented run. And 9/11 was the greatest thing to happen for the republican party in some time.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Everyone knows it was the dot.com bubble taxes that made the Clinton years look good...it wasn't he was some master of economics....LOL.


So the success under Clinton ties out to the "dot.com" bubble, but inheriting a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit during the worst economy since the great depression has no impact on running debt totals?

You're a smart little man. Cough cough.


_________________
I approve this message.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

boards of FL wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:Everyone knows it was the dot.com bubble taxes that made the Clinton years look good...it wasn't he was some master of economics....LOL.


So the success under Clinton ties out to the "dot.com" bubble, but inheriting a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit during the worst economy since the great depression has no impact on running debt totals?

You're a smart little man.  Cough cough.
You are a condescending little oaf...Reagan shut down the Soviet Union by out spending it. That had a nice ripple effect back into the Clinton years also..The cold war ended and that money could be saved....You need to study some history but I doubt you leave your Xbox long enough to learn anything...

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
colaguy wrote:
boards of FL wrote:NATIONAL DEBT passes 18 trillion - Page 2 Tkvbt7C

Please explain how this chart of the DEFICIT relates to the NATIONAL DEBT that the OP posted.


Running debt totals are for the most part a function of annual budgets.  Obama inherited what was probably the worst budget situation in US history combined with the worst economy since the great depression.  It wouldn't matter who stepped into the oval office in January 2009, debt totals were going to increase.  All that we can ask is that the train be slowed.  With that said, we have seen that train slow down at a rate faster than any time post WWII.  And should the trend of the last six years continue, it may actually go into reverse.

I can't believe that you can't sort that out in your mind before submitting that question.  It's like asking "Please explain how economic productivity relates to GDP!  Huh!?!? Huh?!!?"  or "Please explain how the number of unemployed people relates to the unemployment rate!?! Huh?!?!"

People who continually point out debt added since 2009 while ignoring the nearly unprecedented annual deficit reduction make an air tight case that they truly do not understand the underlying subject matter at all.[/quote]


Then please explain the continued increase in the debt ($18T) while the deficit is decreasing.  Yes, the deficit is decreasing, but it is still a negative number and is added to the national debt. Per your chart, in 2013 the deficit was $600B.  That is borrowed money and was added to the national debt.  I blame Congress (mostly) since it is clear that the debt is a product over several presidential administrations.

If your point (highlighted) is that the growth of the debt is slowing because the deficit is decreasing, then yes, I agree.  But the current size of the debt ($18T) looms over our heads and will soon be a major issue.  Unfortunately, the debt is apparently not on the collective minds of the citizens, nor of Congress.  And much like the looming roads and bridges crisis, the Congress is unlikely to act until there is a debt-caused threat: our credit rating has already been downgraded and could further decline; the increase in the debt means increase in interest outlays; if interest rates were to rise significantly, so would the interest payments.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
colaguy wrote:Second, the debt and deficit are not completely related.


That is why I said, "Running debt totals are for the most part a function of annual budgets."



colaguy wrote:The chart indicates decreasing deficits, yet the deficit continues to increase.


The deficit continues to increase?  Perhaps the chart is confusing you.  Here are the underlying numbers:

2009: (1,412.7)
2010: (1,279.3)
2011: (1,259.7)
2012: (1,034.1)
2013: (636.1)
2014: (486.0)

After looking at this again, would you say those numbers are increasing or decreasing?

The second "deficit" should have been "debt."

2seaoat



Our exports remain strong, our imports are lower, our nation remains productive, our agriculture sector feeds the world, our energy sector is once again becoming self sufficient, fleet averages and conservation have become priorities, the interest rates remain low, and inflation remains low.

Russia is nearing double digit inflation, and a collapsing economy. We are withdrawing from the Middle East despite the MIC trying to scare us about ISIS, and we face a real probability that within a decade we will have medicare for all fully funded with a combined sales tax and traditional withholdings. America grows stronger and the national debt matter less and less. When we see interest rates at 18% and double digit inflation, debt will be a very serious concern, but we are trending as Boards has clearly shown to balanced budgets and debt reduction. However, to reduce the debt will require the return of tax rates to progressive rates. It is that simple.

boards of FL

boards of FL

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:Everyone knows it was the dot.com bubble taxes that made the Clinton years look good...it wasn't he was some master of economics....LOL.


So the success under Clinton ties out to the "dot.com" bubble, but inheriting a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit during the worst economy since the great depression has no impact on running debt totals?

You're a smart little man.  Cough cough.
You are a condescending little oaf...Reagan shut down the Soviet Union by out spending it. That had a nice ripple effect back into the Clinton years also..The cold war ended and that money could be saved....You need to study some history but I doubt you leave your Xbox long enough to learn anything...


You're a little old man who hides out in the woods with his guns.  You believe 9/11 was an inside job and that fluoride is bad for your teeth.  You think that vaccinations produce a negative effect on society.  You regularly read websites about the Illuminati and vast, clandestine conspiracies.  You're also openly racist and homophobic.  This forum is probably the only channel through which you can let your true self air out.  You would be scorned in public if you voiced the opinions that you do here in anonymity.   Long story short, you're simply a dumbass and a pussy who is probably afraid of his own shadow.  You're about as inconsequential as it gets on this forum.

I bet you're even too scared to scroll down and read the rest of this message.






































































































BOO!



Last edited by boards of FL on 12/3/2014, 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : you're)


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

colaguy wrote:Then please explain the continued increase in the debt ($18T) while the deficit is decreasing.  Yes, the deficit is decreasing, but it is still a negative number and is added to the national debt. Per your chart, in 2013 the deficit was $600B.  That is borrowed money and was added to the national debt.  I blame Congress (mostly) since it is clear that the debt is a product over several presidential administrations.


Good god. Perhaps a dumbed-down model is in order:

Jack has a job. Jack has bills. Jack has debt.

At the start of period 1, Jack's debt was $100.

During period 1, Jack earned $200.

During period 1, Jack paid $250 in bills.

At the end of period one, Jack's deficit was $50 and his new debt total was $150.00

At the start of period 2, Jack's debt was $150.

During period 2, Jack earned $200.

During period 2, Jack paid $225 in bills.

At the end of period 2, Jack's deficit was $25 and his new debt total was $175.00

Whoa!!!! But, like, how did the debt thing go up if the deficit thing went down!?!?!?! Huh?!? Huh?!?!?1 (MIND BLOWN!!!!!!)


_________________
I approve this message.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

I don't have to say much except to point out the world you will  be living in will sicken and torment you everyday and make you look upon death as a friend......enjoy...

https://wasabi.org/america-sickest-country-earth/

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:Everyone knows it was the dot.com bubble taxes that made the Clinton years look good...it wasn't he was some master of economics....LOL.


So the success under Clinton ties out to the "dot.com" bubble, but inheriting a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit during the worst economy since the great depression has no impact on running debt totals?

You're a smart little man.  Cough cough.
You are a condescending little oaf...Reagan shut down the Soviet Union by out spending it. That had a nice ripple effect back into the Clinton years also..The cold war ended and that money could be saved....You need to study some history but I doubt you leave your Xbox long enough to learn anything...


You're a little old man who hides out in the woods with his guns.  You believe 9/11 was an inside job and that fluoride is bad for your teeth.  You think that vaccinations produce a negative effect on society.  You regularly read websites about the Illuminati and vast, clandestine conspiracies.  You're also openly racist and homophobic.  This forum is probably the only channel through which you can let your true self air out.  You would be scorned in public if you voiced the opinions that you do here in anonymity.   Long story short, you're simply a dumbass and a pussy who is probably afraid of his own shadow.  Your about as inconsequential as it gets on this forum.

I bet you're even too scared to scroll down and read the rest of this message.

BOO!

NATIONAL DEBT passes 18 trillion - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQ79luieUM0qS5rWCi-Yzvt0cpF5sbZ2x1EVNBDz3GoU4Y6AnzEg

And in the end all Boards has left is to be rude and insult other posters because...

******ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB5JRS6JOck

Laughing

2seaoat



I don't have to say much except to point out the world you will be living in will sicken and torment you everyday and make you look upon death as a friend......enjoy...


Get some help.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:We saw the train slowing prior to the economic downturn too. It's kinda funny how things like that happen huh? The dot com crash... 9/11... housing bubble... but you're full excuses for only the dem watch. You have no credibility.

I didn't like the policies after the mess bush2 walked into either. See how that works? I didn't think so.

NATIONAL DEBT passes 18 trillion - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpcz7aTkfNizN-NUrlitwaGi1EqItGFlfJGfgJqhA0k-6kOm2jIw

Eleventh hour orders left by the Clinton administration cost hundreds of billions of dollars during the Bush administration thereby adding to the national debt.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GXNB2UeJF0

Smile

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
colaguy wrote:Then please explain the continued increase in the debt ($18T) while the deficit is decreasing.  Yes, the deficit is decreasing, but it is still a negative number and is added to the national debt. Per your chart, in 2013 the deficit was $600B.  That is borrowed money and was added to the national debt.  I blame Congress (mostly) since it is clear that the debt is a product over several presidential administrations.


Good god.  Perhaps a dumbed-down model is in order:

Jack has a job.  Jack has bills.  Jack has debt.

At the start of period 1, Jack's debt was $100.

During period 1, Jack earned $200.

During period 1, Jack paid $250 in bills.

At the end of period one, Jack's deficit was $50 and his new debt total was $150.00

At the start of period 2, Jack's debt was $150.

During period 2, Jack earned $200.

During period 2, Jack paid $225 in bills.

At the end of period 2, Jack's deficit was $25 and his new debt total was $175.00

Whoa!!!! But, like, how did the debt thing go up if the deficit thing went down!?!?!?! Huh?!? Huh?!?!?1 (MIND BLOWN!!!!!!)

Aside from your condescension, it is obvious that whether the DEFICIT is increasing or decreasing, the fact that there is a DEFICIT generally means that the DEBT will increase.

The issue I have with the deficit is miniscule compared to that of the debt.  Great that the deficit is decreasing, but we're still growing the debt.

Your "dumbed-down model" appears to ignore the cost of the debt (interest), which in reality amounted to about $250B in 2013. The thing about large and growing interest payments is that they consume tax revenue that could otherwise be spent on the country's priorities.  Per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)  the debt -- and the interest owed on it -- will continue to grow faster than the economy in subsequent decades. That's a trajectory the CBO describes as "unsustainable."

The large debt is influencing the Fed and its monetary policy.  In August the Fed Chairman emphasized a lack of interest rate increases. The real focus of the Fed is on whether the United States can survive higher interest rates while carrying a record load of $17 trillion worth of debt.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-we-owe-federal-debt-to-2013-10


So who do you owe the national debt to Boards ?


NATIONAL DEBT passes 18 trillion - Page 2 Screen%20shot%202013-10-11%20at%205.20.55%20pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

colaguy wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
colaguy wrote:Then please explain the continued increase in the debt ($18T) while the deficit is decreasing.  Yes, the deficit is decreasing, but it is still a negative number and is added to the national debt. Per your chart, in 2013 the deficit was $600B.  That is borrowed money and was added to the national debt.  I blame Congress (mostly) since it is clear that the debt is a product over several presidential administrations.


Good god.  Perhaps a dumbed-down model is in order:

Jack has a job.  Jack has bills.  Jack has debt.

At the start of period 1, Jack's debt was $100.

During period 1, Jack earned $200.

During period 1, Jack paid $250 in bills.

At the end of period one, Jack's deficit was $50 and his new debt total was $150.00

At the start of period 2, Jack's debt was $150.

During period 2, Jack earned $200.

During period 2, Jack paid $225 in bills.

At the end of period 2, Jack's deficit was $25 and his new debt total was $175.00

Whoa!!!! But, like, how did the debt thing go up if the deficit thing went down!?!?!?! Huh?!? Huh?!?!?1 (MIND BLOWN!!!!!!)

Aside from your condescension, it is obvious that whether the DEFICIT is increasing or decreasing, the fact that there is a DEFICIT generally means that the DEBT will increase.

The issue I have with the deficit is miniscule compared to that of the debt.  Great that the deficit is decreasing, but we're still growing the debt.

Your "dumbed-down model" appears to ignore the cost of the debt (interest), which in reality amounted to about $250B in 2013. The thing about large and growing interest payments is that they consume tax revenue that could otherwise be spent on the country's priorities.  Per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)  the debt -- and the interest owed on it -- will continue to grow faster than the economy in subsequent decades. That's a trajectory the CBO describes as "unsustainable."

The large debt is influencing the Fed and its monetary policy.  In August the Fed Chairman emphasized a lack of interest rate increases. The real focus of the Fed is on whether the United States can survive higher interest rates while carrying a record load of $17 trillion worth of debt.



Condescension only kicks in when I have to explain something again and again and again.

Would you agree that the way in which we address the debt situation is by addressing annual budgets?  Debt is a long running total of our annual budgets.  You understand this, right?  Aren't we in this debt situation after years upon years of budget deficits?  Isn't the path out of that to eliminate budget deficits and eventually return to surplus?  What have we seen happen during the last six years?



NATIONAL DEBT passes 18 trillion - Page 2 Tkvbt7C


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:


Condescension only kicks in when I have to explain something again and again and again.

Would you agree that the way in which we address the debt situation is by addressing annual budgets?  Debt is a long running total of our annual budgets.  You understand this, right?  Aren't we in this debt situation after years upon years of budget deficits?  Isn't the path out of that to eliminate budget deficits and eventually return to surplus?  What have we seen happen during the last six years?


NATIONAL DEBT passes 18 trillion - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOK6akfgyGIOPLv4hryWmHbL-2MZznfsOByFPU5b1ZypmSOmobag

Which budgets would those be?

The ones that never happened when the Democrats under Nancy controlled the House which controls the purse strings of government?

Or is it the budgets created by a House of Reps controlled by Republicans that causes the Whiner In The White House to close down the national parks and monuments until gets his way?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

Smile

boards of FL

boards of FL

Damaged Eagle wrote:Which budgets would those be?


Point your eyeballs towards the right hand side of this chart and then use them to focus on the blue stuff.  Those budgets.


NATIONAL DEBT passes 18 trillion - Page 2 Tkvbt7C


_________________
I approve this message.

KarlRove

KarlRove

BOF is on crack.

Guest


Guest

A budget has not been passed since 2009.

Is there a chart for continuing resolutions?

2seaoat



A budget has not been passed since 2009.

Is there a chart for continuing resolutions?



So you deny the facts that the deficit has been cut and continues to be cut under President Obama because no budget has been passed since 2009?
Bottom line is President Obama is on course to have a balanced budget by fiscal 2017. Pretty remarkable what he has accomplished.

Guest


Guest

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE WWW.NATIONALREVIEW.COM
MAY 15, 2014 4:00 AM

The Budget Deficit Is Falling
You can thank the sequester and spending caps.

By Stephen Moore

The Congressional Budget Office reported this week that the budget deficit is falling rapidly from its trillion-dollar-plus Rocky Mountain highs during Barack Obama’s first term. I estimate that the deficit will likely be $400 billion or lower this fiscal year, and that is a near $1 trillion improvement over four years. As a share of GDP, federal deficits have tumbled from nearly 10 percent to just under 3 percent.

The question is, Why the progress?

The main factor has been falling government spending, which is a positive force for the economy. And the reason government spending is falling is that the budget caps and the automatic cuts called “sequester,” which were part of the under-appreciated 2011 budget deal between Republicans in Congress and President Obama, are working to force down outlays on non-entitlement programs.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, annual outlays peaked at $3.598 trillion in fiscal 2011. At the beginning of 2011, the CBO projected that the total outlays would be just shy of $4 trillion by 2014. But the Tea Party movement revolted in the 2010 midterm elections and helped sweep into the House scores of fiscally conservative Republicans, and the GOP seized the majority. This pivotal election radically changed the direction of our fiscal deterioration.

Instead of staying on a path to $4 trillion in federal spending, outlays dropped to $3.546 trillion in fiscal 2012, and to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013. This was a 4 percent decline in spending in nominal terms and closer to 7 percent in real terms. This year, expenditures will rise less than 2 percent.

The bad news is that expenditures are expected to jump a whopping 7 percent and will be closer to nearly $3.87 trillion, thanks to a bad budget deal last year that suspended the spending caps for a year and raised the ceilings to accommodate a bipartisan resumption of spending. But even with this setback, the path of spending has improved remarkably from Obama’s reckless first term.

The sequester saved about $80 billion in 2013. Those across-the-board cuts in defense programs were tough, but the domestic cuts were easily absorbed, notwithstanding the moans from government officials and attempts by the White House to scare the public. (Remember the shutdown of the air-traffic-control towers and the threats to food-safety inspections?)

Yes, the red ink is still flowing way too fast, and the more than $6 trillion added to the debt in Mr. Obama’s first five years in office shatters all records for fiscal deviancy. Mr. Obama will clearly go down in history as the most financially irresponsible president in history, and it’s ironic that Democrats used to say that of George W. Bush, who borrowed at half of the Obama pace.

The budget numbers are sugarcoated a bit by the accounting gimmick of the payback bailout money doled out to housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and banks’ being counted as “negative outlays.” Still, discretionary spending is way down, thanks to caps. From a peak of 9.4 percent of GDP in fiscal 2010, these outlays collapsed to 7.6 percent last year and may slide to under 7 percent in Mr. Obama’s final year in office. The caps and sequester have squeezed green-energy programs, the Legal Services Corporation, federal land-acquisition programs, and the EPA. Liberals have come to hate sequester because it pinches the programs they care so much about.

The worry is Republicans may flinch and suspend the hard-fought caps yet again next year so they can continue spending. Already some Republican appropriators are joining with Democrats to call for suspending the budget reforms that ended earmarks for Bridge to Nowhere–type projects. And Mr. Obama would love another $100 billion spending spree on infrastructure and other public-works projects to fund his union pals.

On the revenue side, receipts are up because growth has been slow but steady and the stock market is on a tear. Revenues are up more than 8 percent this year, but the pace of tax collections could and should be double that if we achieve 4 percent growth. With 4 percent growth, enforcement of spending caps, and even minimal entitlement reforms, the budget could be balanced by 2017.

The wild card in this forecast is Obamacare and other entitlements, which have been rising faster than 5 percent this year. With some 5 million more Americans on Medicaid now because of Obamacare, the cost acceleration is no surprise. Amazingly the White House calls this spending a sign that the new health law is working.

Mr. Obama not only gave us the most expensive new entitlement in 40 years, but he has fought nearly every spending reform of the last three years. Now he wants to take credit for being a deficit cutter. Anyone who believes that has been smoking some of that legalized pot in Colorado.

— Stephen Moore is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation and co-author of the New York Times bestseller An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States.

2seaoat



Stephen Moore is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation

He just cannot give credit where credit is due.....I love it when he is on Bill Mahr whining and Bill destroys him every time because he cannot accept that President Obama has been kicking asz.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Stephen Moore is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation

He just cannot give credit where credit is due.....I love it when he is on Bill Mahr whining and Bill destroys him every time because he cannot accept that President Obama has been kicking asz.



"destroys"

"kicking asz"



Sophomoric.

2seaoat



"destroys"

"kicking asz"



Sophomoric.


Just raises your blood pressure when the black man is having a record presidency........try to find another article written by someone like Moore to diminish the President.......sorry the truth is killing you folks who cringe at the thought of a Black man being so successful. Let me put it another way which is not sophomoric......President Obama 99 haters 10.......digest it.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:"destroys"

"kicking asz"



Sophomoric.


Just raises your blood pressure when the black man is having a record presidency........try to find another article written by someone like Moore to diminish the President.......sorry the truth is killing you folks who cringe at the thought of a Black man being so successful.  Let me put it another way which is not sophomoric......President Obama 99 haters 10.......digest it.



I am not trying to diminish the President. I respect the office and do not speak ill of him or his family.

His politics I do not agree with on all counts and has nothing to do with who he is, who his people are, or what his belief system is.
You are the one with the race issues, Seaoat.

Grow up.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum