Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Everybody Listen Up! The Deficit Is Actually Shrinking, Despite Beltway Propaganda

Posted 1 year ago on March 2, 2013, 5:03 p.m. EST by GirlFriday (17435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

February 26, 2013 |

There is no deficit problem. The deficit is down 50 percent as a share of gross domestic product just since President Bush’s fiscal year 2009 deficit and is falling at the fastest rate since the end of World War II. Yet the Washington debate is about how and where to cut us back into recession. Why?

Congress should just repeal the sequester – we don’t need it. We have 10 years to fix the long-term deficit situation. We should not be stampeded by deficit-scare propaganda and instead take the time to carefully consider the right approach. That way we won’t make the mistakes that Europe is making.

Deficit Falling

Here is a chart of the deficit as a percent of GDP: (Data sources below)

Once again, because it might be hard to register due to the drumbeat of deficit-scare propaganda, this is a fact: the deficit is falling at the fastest rate since the end of World War II. It is down 50 percent as a percent of GDP just since Bush’s huge $1.4 trillion fiscal 2009 deficit. And the deficit is projected to be stable for a decade.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/everybody-listen-deficit-actually-shrinking-despite-beltway-propaganda

125 Comments

125 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're asking an awful lot of people stop jerking their knees, and you know it will take the better part of a decade for FLAKESnews to mention it.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yep. They may not ever mention it.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

It will be on to next weeks congressional cliff hanger.

Those that WILL be hurt by sequestration, will be ignored, unless they snap from the pressure and do something that gets them tossed in prison, and only then if it's something lurid enough to devote their precious air time to.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You know, there are moments where I think they are hoping that people snap.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm sure their "consultants' have already given them an estimate of how many they can expect.

In spite of how they can appear. They are not stupid.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Oh, and probably hedging bets.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

they will eventually. The republicans will take credit for it. The democrats will say they did it too. You all know how this works.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

There is that

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Where's the regulation? Last time I checked Goldman Sachs is still setting the landscape and bathing in taxpayer and federal reserve billions.

Sorry to break this to you, but both Obama and Bush are whores to Goldman Sachs, Citi, JP Morgan Chase, and all the other frauds. Why else did they vote to give them billions? To save the economy? LOL. Acting like any of these people will save us from these problems is foolish.

Deficit was 1.1 trillion last year. We have a huge deficit problem. And it's due to bullshit monetary policy and a corporate takeover of government allowing loopholes and fraud to run wild... and wars still based on lies.

Lloyd Blankfein is a motherfucker.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

any of the downvoters care to argue the facts listed in my comment? Didn't think so.

Goldman Sachs are puppet masters for mainstream politicians.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lol god forbid someone criticize politicians for giving billions to Goldman Sachs and wall street frauds.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Why TF are you being voted down for such core OWS truths ?!!! Poster 'bw' has the same thing !! I'm beginning to feel a bit left out, lol !

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

They can hide behind their downvotes knowing they don't have an argument nor a moral core.

Goldman Sachs and Koch sell this system and sadly the masses are buying it. And a few of those people come here and propagate for the fraud of nation in the name of blind party allegiance.

edit- just an FYI, I'm not talking about Girlfriday who is the original poster. I'm talking about the bulk of people downvoting my comment.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

'Infographics' on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is :

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Much of the regulation is actually regulation that forces small businesses from entering the market and competing with the major corps that now control our government. Essentially providing monopolistic powers to the major corps to protect their market share.

Regulations are supposed to help the people...but they're actually being used to help the major corps.

So I'm not arguing with you...but I'm in agreeance...although maybe in agreeance from a different point of view.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

They over-regulate the little guy, generally lobbied by the big guy, and they under-regulate and further de-regulate the big guy, also lobbied for by the big guy. Matt Taibbi talks about how this is used to manipulate people, specifically the tea party crowd, into thinking that all regulations must in turn be bad. They use their experiences or examples from small businesses. And these fake Randian politicians then further manipulate, they raise hell about regulations on banks, which would actually help the working class and small business, and they are silent as the little guy gets screwed over, keeping their constituents in the dark. It's a corporate takeover. Corporations hate the little guys. It's a fucking chess game to them. One of the many forms of manufacturing consent explained beautifully in one page by Matt Taibbi in Griftopia. Wish I remembered what page that was on and I'd quote it out. He explains it better than I did here.

The government definitely forgot how to regulate. I take that back. What I mean to say is -the corporations and banks took over the government. They have been re-writing the rules for their benefit at the expense of the working class ever since.

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I completely agree with you. I do believe that there is a place for regulations....but I also believe our current system has been hijacked by the corps, which like you said, make the regulations favorable to themselves to squeeze out small businesses and other competitors that would take portions of their market share...which gives the major corps monopolistic powers which they otherwise wouldn't have.

While most people view this is a corporate problem...i view it as a government problem. If the checks and incentives were put into place to stop this behavior in government, it would cease to be a problem for the people.

I believe the incentives in government are the root problem....not the corporations which take advantage of the situation. I'm not arguing corporations are more moral or less moral than government....i'm simply arguing about removing the focal point. When i say remove the focal point I don't mean remove government...but remove the incentives present that allow corps to take it over.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

So since the big corporations have gotten such enormous power, it would be a good idea to try to regulate them and increase their taxes substantially, right?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Among many things, yes. Regulations like "you can't buy politicians anymore."

Also a good thing to breakup monopolies. That hasn't been done in years.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Sure. Getting money out of politics is an important short term goal.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I think that's treating around the problem...it's a patch job...or a bandaid...leaving the wound to fester beneath.

You cannot fix the problem unless the incentives in government to be taken over by corporations is corrected.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The politicians are favoring the big corporations because they’re bought by the corporations.

It shouldn’t stop with taxation and regulation of these private tyrannies; eventually private ownership on the economic institutions should be dismantled. Taxation is a bandaid, but the bandaid is a start.

So you don’t want to tax and regulate these powerful, tyrannical institutions more?

They should keep all their wealth and power? The libertarian solution, in other words.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"So you don’t want to tax and regulate these powerful, tyrannical institutions more?"

No I personally don't...not unless the causative factors are taken care of first.because you haven't corrected the illness....you're treating around it. If the causative factors have been removed and problems still exist then by all means tax and regulate more.

Bandaids are not starts to me...they cover the problem and let them fester beneath the surface only to sprout into a bigger festering problem in the future.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

So, the libertarian solution in other words: Let the huge corporations that control the economy and our lives keep all their power and wealth. Don’t you see that the reason politicians favor the financial elite is because they are bought and paid for by them?

Taxation and regulation would weaken their power.

Btw, what do you think about democracy, John? You know, people having a say in the things that affect them? You like that idea?

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

" Don’t you see that the reason politicians favor the financial elite is because they are bought and paid for by them?"

I agree with that statement 100%....but i don't see taxation and more regulations as a cure for that with the system that is in place now.....more regulations would be created by the very corporations that already control government that would squeeze out more small businesses and create more monopolistic control over the system. Taxation would arguably weaken their power...but i believe regulation under the present system would only increase their power.

Without addressing the focal point of the problem you're not going to cure the problem...and these bandaids will last a couple years before we wind up right back where we are now.

I firmly believe in the ability of people to have a say in the things that affect them. What i don't agree with is a group dictating what i may or may not do in my personal life.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The main problem is that private enterprise has gotten more and more wealthy and powerful, abling them to buy politicians to make them even more powerful. It’s a vicious circle. Concentrated private power is the problem.

So if you agree, then why don’t you support efforts to try to get politicians to weaken their power with taxation and regulation? The U.S. isn’t a totalitarian corporate dictatorship; people can organize and push politicians to do things.

If you worry about small businesses, then what about a progressive taxation, so that the big ones get the raises? You agree that taxation would weaken their power, so let’s raise taxes substantially on the major ones..

So you think people should have a say in the things that affect them. Good. But then you’d support workplace democracy as well, right? I mean, the place where you work is a pretty big part of your life..

What you do in your private life is your business, BUT the economy is a completely different issue: it affects us all; it’s all-encompassing. The economy must therefore be run democratically by the workers and the communities, not by wealthy businessmen, like the libe(R)tarians (Schiff,Johnson etc) think.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"abling them to buy politicians to make them even more powerful."

Right, so in my point of view we need to develop ways in which the politicians cannot be bought....you strip them of their incentives for greed while in congress ...this is what I mean by saying lets get to the focal point, or the root of the problem. If the politicians are no longer bought and paid for by the corps what happens? They start to work for the people...they start behaving honestly...they stop being motivated by greed. Legislation they produce starts working for the people....regulations are produced that work for the people instead of giving monopolistic powers to major corporations. Major financial institutions aren't bailed out for their fraudulent practices at the taxpayers expense. The whole system changes.

"If you worry about small businesses, then what about a progressive taxation, so that the big ones get the raises?"

I also worry that taxation ends up hurting the very areas in which you are trying to grow the economy. I believe the inequality in the system is directly tied to the financial system.....debasing of the currency and special privileges given to major financial institutions that have bought congress. I believe that if this system was corrected, much of the inequality that exists would disappear....or the economy would be so healthy that people would have such ample opportunities that the lower and middle class would rise and there would cease to be bickering between classes.

"workplace democracy as well, right? "

I don't believe in the right of 51% to force things on the rest of the population. What if at a particular company 51% of the people wished to not allow blacks to be employed? I find it very easy to manipulate people and to get them to do things they wouldn't normally under other circumstances...just look at the propaganda that people eat up every day in this country. Imprisoning thousands of Japanese Americans during the world war is another great example.

I honestly believe that if the political and monetary climate were modified people would be living in a democracy where they could decide who makes it and who doesn't. How would this occur? They voice their opinion every time they buy something....it is in essence a vote. If you dislike a particular company or corrupt CEO....you cast your vote by buying someone elses goods.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“we need to develop ways in which the politicians cannot be bought....you strip them of their incentives for greed while in congress”

Money should be removed from politics, yes, and pushing for taxation and regulations of the main contributors – the huge corporations – would help substantially.

“I also worry that taxation ends up hurting the very areas in which you are trying to grow the economy.”

The economy can be perfectly healthy with an effective progressive tax system and more economic equality. The Scandinavian countries is an example of that.

“I don't believe in the right of 51% to force things on the rest of the population.”

But it’s ok for 49% to force things on the majority?

But what do you think about the solutions Libertarian Socialism offers – building democracy from below, so that people are in control of their own lives and work?

“What if at a particular company 51% of the people wished to not allow blacks to be employed?”

Well, I’m advocating Libertarian Socialism which is about building a civilized, solidaric society. It’s about creating a real participatory democracy in which appalling attitudes like racism are actively opposed and fought.

Right wing libertarians on the other hand, like Ron and Rand Paul for example, want to allow lots of racism in society.

“If you dislike a particular company or corrupt CEO....you cast your vote by buying someone elses goods.”

Boycotting can be a good tactic, but it can’t stop with that. In my view corporations are themselves illegitimate. Institutions must be controlled democratically by the participants. People should have a say in the things that affect them, and that should of course include the workplace.

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

GF - pardon a correction - I only hear Rs complaining about the "terrible" deficit.
I hear many D's being suckered into debating where to cut.
D's should be demanding a real minimum tax on corps & ending cap gains preference & ending ag subsidies over $1,000,000 & ending mortgage interest deductions over $100,000.

On the other hand, we could institute austerity and become what the Rs hate - Europe

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I agree. Excellent points.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

For the challenged.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/06/how-to-prove-obama-lowered-the-deficit-in-four-easy-and-indisputable-steps/

Tune in to the FLAKESnews Faux Fact Flingers for a further blurring of reality, if this twists your panties..

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 1 year ago

Let's be honest: - Republicans looked like a hero when the Bush Tax Cuts were instituted. - But we have NOT YET paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. - The Bush Tax Cuts failed to provide "trickle down" benefits. - The Bush Tax Cuts failed to stimulate the economy. - The Bush Tax Cuts failed to create jobs. - The war in Iraq was Bush's War-of-Choice. - The Bush War in Iraq diverted troops from Afghanistan, thereby raising the costs of that war. - Experts say that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq will likely cost more than three trillion dollars when we pay for the wars, pay to restock our military units, and pay to care for our wounded warriors. - WE NEED A WAR TAX. - WE NEED THOSE WHO PROFITED FROM THOSE WARS TO PAY.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Let's be honest-Sequestration.was/ is unnecessary.

[-] 0 points by SteadyRock (63) from New York, NY 1 year ago

US deficit and debt not only in numbers but in pictures: http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_deficit/us_deficit.html - who is puppet socking now?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Wow. powerful graphics, but we are the largest economy on the planet so this doesn't surprise smart people I'm sure.

It does show clearly though that we MUST increase revenue!!

raise taxes on the rich,

invest in job creation (reward insourcing, raise wages) to grow the economy.

And cut the military budget and corp welfare.

That'll do it.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I don't know, who the fuck is you? Keep talking we'll figure out whose sock you are.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Who the fuck is you?

We'll figure out whose little puppet you are in a minute.

[-] 1 points by SteadyRock (63) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I know what I'm doing, and I know what you doing, - you misleading people with your postings mostly times. For example I'll give you food for thoughts: when we see protests on the streets of Washington or New York against military aggression for instance next to UN assembly - there is always few other protests in the same time, another place and with different agenda. I'm not saying that woman's right or ecology issues less important, I call it misleading, and I just explained why, and we so dumb to dig it

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The conclusions drawn by this chart are completely wrong. The chart is showing the ANNUAL deficit as a percentage of GDP, not the OVERALL deficit that has been accumulating for decades.

The OVERALL federal deficit of nearly $15 trillion is roughly 100% of our $15 trillion GDP. The 8% figure for 2012 is the ANNUAL percentage of GDP borrowed for that year.

It's like saying our credit card balance is going down because we're not borrowing as much every year. The fact is we're still borrowing, and the balance is still increasing, but not as fast as it was before.

Look at the second graph from this link:

http://www.slyman.org/blog/2011/07/reaganomics-and-prudent-taxation/

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Then read the reports. As I stated earlier, I can go back several months.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Is this reply meant for someone else??

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Those graphs show ANNUAL Federal debt. TOTAL Federal debt ACCUMULATES over the years because it never gets fully paid off. The Federal government borrows money every year. The debt has always been increasing for the past 30 years except for a few years during the Clinton administration. You must have a SURPLUS for the deficit to go down. Show me a recent surplus.

See the first graph.

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/misc/debt-revenue-and-expenditures-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

So far you're flunking economics 101. Here's a pop quiz.

If there is an annual deficit of 10% in a $1 trillion per year GDP that occurs for 10 consecutive years and none of the deficit is paid off, what is the total deficit in percentage of GDP after the tenth year?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Now, here is a little pop quiz. What did the report say? What is the law that was passed in 2011? How much doubt are you trying to spread?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The report said the Federal government spent $1.1 trillion more than they took in for the year 2012. A decrease compared to the ANNUAL deficits of the previous 3 years.

The law passed in 2011 you refer to would likely be the Budget Control Act of 2011. The debt ceiling was set at $14.3 trillion in 2011 and needed to be raised again.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/whats-happening-debt-ceiling-explained

According to the article in your link, the deficit was just $1.3 trillion in 2011. Can you explain the difference between the $1.3 trillion ANNUAL deficit and $14.3 trillion debt ceiling figures for 2011?

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

jrh. At least your getting somewhat of a response (see my comments up above). I agree with you. This post (and article) is so full of holes it becomes quite easy to show the insignificance of the conclusion. The agenda is to put up a blaring claim that the deficit is reducing so we should not worry or do anything except avoid reality. Would welcome a comment from you on what I stated above.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The rate of increase in the Annual deficit is definitely decreasing as GF's article states, but the total combined deficit which includes the unpaid deficits from prior years is still increasing.

[-] 0 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

If we continue to run $1+ trillions federal deficit, the U.S. will NOT have 10 years to fix the long-term deficit situation. The sequester may be totally unnecessary due to its wrong approach but targeted cuts to federal spending, plugging up revenue leakages, and increased taxes are all necessary to avoid dire consequences. Otherwise, the PIGS R US horror show will surely turn the U.S. into a roasted pig with the global-warming-baked Texas instrument dangling from its underbelly. By that time, even the meat-cleaver approach will not help unless we actually want to make some gyros (just to remind the uninitiated -- gyros are Greek-style sandwiches).

We need to make advance financial preparations for the medical-care contractual items promised to the baby boomers or we must wrestle the costs of medical care under control.

Even after adjusting for inflation, we are running a higher federal deficit now than at the height of the Cold War arms buildup under Reagan to confront the Evil (Soviet) Empire. Reagan's budget director David Stockman's '$200 billion of deficit as far as the eyes can see' in 1984 translates to about '$443 billion of deficit as far as the eyes can see' now in 2013. $443 billion of deficit is highly desirable right now compared to $1100 billion of deficit, definitely not something that could cause the budget director to resign in disgust.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/opinion-congress-lies-and-statistics-sen-sessions-/

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/medicarespendinggrowth/ib.cfm

and more importantly this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/justices-back-ftc-on-blocking-hospital-mergers.html?_r=0

because I'm seeing an awful lot of cuts on the bottom but, I'm not hearing too much about those at the top. So, it would be nice to hear your thoughts on the above and it's impact. Further, I am pretty impressed that you know gyros are actually made from pork. Really.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

I have not reviewed these items in detail. Regarding the last one, mergers in general benefit the people having the power and hurt those being merged. It often means that some people will lose their jobs for good. Industries usually resort to mergers when they face severe dislocations or competitions -- not good at all but it could be even worse (in terms of preserving more jobs in the long term) if not done. Take the recently proposed merger of American Airlines and U.S. Airways for example. I suspect that the high price of jet fuel cut into their profit margins. If the world has entered peak oil, that price is unlikely to come down. By merging and reducing the headcounts, there is a better chance for the merged company to survive but people will likely lose their jobs. By not merging, both weakened companies take the chances and if both go under, it would be even worse than not doing a merger. Mergers tend to reduce competition if the merged entity will enjoy dominant position in the market so consumers will suffer. That is why we have anti-trust reviews requirement on proposed corporate mergers.

The Affordable Care Act has mechanisms built in to increase insurance premiums for those people who are lax in not having kept their insurance coverage all of the time. They may be punished by Medicare because the federal government will become an enforcement arm of the insurance industry. It is really the side effect of the insurance industry having a visible-to-some but largely invisible hand in the drafting of the law.

Medicare and Medicaid cannot negotiate cheaper medicines through volume discounts because they are prohibited by Congress which got (lobbying) support from the pharmaceutical companies selling the medicines. That is why U.S. senior citizens can fill prescriptions cheaper by crossing the borders into Canada or use mail-order pharmacies based in Canada. They are really medical refugees seeking in Canada medical asylum protection from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Again, corporate influence lies behind why the U.S. cannot control its medical costs because the U.S. Congress and other government branches are on the take for funding political campaigns.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by highlander2 (-48) 1 year ago

Damn good points. Sorry you got blocked. Group can't sing We are the World if there are dissenting voices. But I am in your corner against the milquetoasts

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

I thought it was about having grandma off social security and on the cat food diet.GDP-- Gradmas da problem.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

That's a hoot.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

This chart in the posts website is very deceptive. Notice how it stops in 2009....take a look at it for the last two decades and you will see the problem. It also continues on past our current year to make it appear that this trend will continue lower. Anyone who's paid attention to this stuff over the years knows that when you're dealing with the budget and GDP...future predictions are anything but accurate.

That's not to say this is all obama's fault....Clinton left with a surplus....and Bush def did not...but obama has nowhere near helped the problem.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

GF. I would like to see a graph with more years, something that goes back at least 10 at a minimum. I would also like to see actual GDP as a third axis. If GDP is higher, then the actual deficient would not necessarily be decreasing as measured on its own, but is reducing as a result of the inverse relationship of the graph. GDP is the other variable here, not just the deficit. Now one could debate if deficit per GDP is significant or not, but in reality, it still comes back to one thing: is the annual deficit increasing or decreasing, and is the cumulative deficit increasing or decreasing; and, is it a continuing drag on the economy? Data can be presented in many ways and graphed against other data to show a trend or an assumed prediction. it is all in the presentation. One problem with the graph as shown is the future data (2013,2014). That should be shaded or notated as specifically assumed trend, not as factual data. Another concern I have with the short timeline is that it covers only a specific economic cycle (recession) and not other periods. The trend line slope is significantly affected by the future data. This draws questions on the conclusion that the author is trying to make with the presentation of limited timeline data.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

They are beginning to understand that it works more like this.

http://pragcap.com/understanding-modern-monetary-system

The old paradigms don't fit anymore.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Then run a search for it.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Maybe when I have time, but I would think you would be interested in doing that also as you made the post. Do you understand the concerns I have on how the data was presented? Do you have any comment on the other concerns with the article and the graph presentation as I have pointed out? Do you have any concern about the GDP as a second data variable? Do younhave any concerns about the future data inthis presentation and the effect on the trend line slope? What do you find significant about deficit per GDP vs actual growth of the annual and cumulative deficits? If the annual deficit is still a trillion dollars and that is a drop of 50% as per GDP, would you agree that a trillion dollars is still a significant deficit? It seems to make the 50% statement less significant when discussing such a large annual number. I find it interesting that the author does not address the total deficit and where that fits into per GDP.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I would think you would be more interested since you are looking to go back. You mean the graph that was based on this? http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43698-Nov-MBR.pdf

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

I will read the link and then respond later today or this evening, but you have not addressed any of the concerns or questions I have asked, especially actual deficit vs per GDP significance. The reason I am looking back further is I want to see the different "per GDP" data for different economic periods to make a comparison, which is normally done when discussing trends or attempting to predict an outcome. One would expect that the author would have done the same in order to have some basis of his article, especially when drawing a highly influenced trend line based on the future. A better approach would be to provide some footnotes about typical recovery deficit/GDP data. Am interested in your response to these concerns. I am not disagreeing with the reduction of the rate of growth of the deficit as per GDP, but is it significant as compared to real numbers?

[-] -2 points by TimetoStop (-55) 1 year ago

Really now! Great? No problems then!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

That's not what it's about. But, thanks for playing.

[-] -3 points by danya8 (-98) 1 year ago

Oh yea...the deficit is totally shrinking.

CUCKOO CUCKOO

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

What happened there, little cockroach? Does this go against the austerity measures that even the IMF is against?

[-] -3 points by TimetoStop (-55) 1 year ago

Wow! You red scum will stoop to no bottom, will you?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm sorry.

We didn't mean it.

Do you want us to stop talking to you?

You could just quit posting silliness.

It's not that hard to do. Even for you.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

2012 deficit was over 1 trillion.

that is a huge deficit problem.

definitely need to tax Goldman Sachs and the other corpos... definitely definitely. Reform monetary policy. 10 minutes til Wapner.

down from 1.4 to 1.1 trillion. That is not a 50% decrease. Spending is also up. Defense spending in particular has been on a steady rise.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

TM. Why does everyone here have trouble with factual information. Anyone can graph data to make it look wonderful, but it does not change the underlying facts. I agree with you. The debt, whether annual or cumulative, is and will continue to be a drag on the economy, and will only continue to siphon off funds for other needs. Thank God interest rates continue to be low, otherwise, the debt / deficit issue would be compounded significantly.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Maybe they don't like quotes from Rain Man.

Also what do you mean specifically in regards to interest rates?

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

If interest rates rise, (but at present not likely) so will the cost of financing the deficit, which is significant impact to potential growth of the debt / deficit.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The entire thing is set up so that IF we manage to turn things around, the interest rates hikes will automatically put us back in the toilet, at which point they will have to lower rates and stimulus to get us back going again, which leads to an interest rate hike....and around and around we go

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Having lived through many interest rate fluctuations (to many years to admit), we have come to a very interesting period. When interest rates were higher, fluctuations were minor as a percentage of change. Now a twitch in rates creates a general panic. Where we once were able to make adjustments with monetary and fiscal policies, we are now captive to our devices. The threat of Inflation becomes a real problem as before we could adjust interest rates (along with other devices). During the period of the 90s, we grew a bit complacent (myself included), that we had finally found the right combination for smoothing out the business cycle. All the boats were rising. But during the following decade, people got greedy, good fiscal policy was forgotten, and everyone went for the ride until we hit the recession. Apologies for being a bit long winded. You are correct to be concerned. We need some re-thinking of economics. Most people think of supply and demand and all the rest of the graphs that was the basis of economic study. But to me, we have too many variables to represent in a 2D picture, rather it must be shown in 3 dimensions. Stimulus is just another name for spending, been there, done that. It is great for short term thinking (hint: re-election) but not for long term. We have to get out of the business midset of "quarter to quarter" chasing of the numbers and back to long term views. Enough with the constant reactionary planning. Time to dump the entire elected governement for some new blood. We are and have been accountable for their actions. Apologies for being a bit long winded........

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Good, well written thoughts are not discouraged at all. I wasnt too into politics until the Bush years, and I remember thinking to myself- everytime there is an economic hiccup, this dude says a bunch of shit and then the Fed just lowers the rate.

Wasnt hard to see where we were going. And you are right, now even teh smallest bump would be major news. And the longer ZIRP is policy, the more debt to finance this mess is created on ZIRP terms. And hence the bubble grows. Even more dependent on zero interest rate policy than before. Worse and Worse every year. Its why many say there is technically no way out of this. There is not a scenario where the things that are needed to keep the economy going dont end up being the factors that destroy it.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

We have an unsteerable ship. I believe that we will survive it all though. We are a resilient nation, always have been. Experience is a great teacher. But we all will need to do our part by becoming more accountable and responsible for good government, and with it, proper oversight with the right regulations. Politically influenced fiscal and monetary policy must end. We must learn to accept the reality of limited resources in a world of growing demand. We need to realize that there are no free rides, there is a price for everything we do or promise. We need to build and buy American whenever possible. I wrote a paper a long time ago about the effect of leakage rate on the money multiplier. We have funded the manufacturing infrastructure in foreign lands at the expense of our own. We see that result exacerbated In the recent recession, only this time jobs are not coming back unless we change our consumption habits. But you made a very good point: there are dangers with the current tools we use to stimulate or control our economy within this country.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It is down 50 percent as a percent of GDP just since Bush’s huge $1.4 trillion fiscal 2009 deficit

The deficit is shrinking. While the Tea Party hilljacks are guffawing, there are a lot of people who are going to be hurt by this

But, yeah, Where is the rage?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

It is not down 50% according to the deficit based on the deficit.

Using GDP is spin. It is bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is.

The deficit is down from 1.4 trillion, the highest most recently, down to 1.1 trillion. I never said it was not down. I said the deficit is not down 50%.

Maybe next year people will celebrate that it's down from 1.1 trillion to 1 trillion, not realizing they just celebrated sequestration and cuts to education.

I don't celebrate trillion dollar deficits. I don't celebrate spin graphs either. The deficit is not down 50%. This is by far one of the worst sessions of Congress in history and has been shitty for a long time. I do not praise them or the president. The overwhelming majority of them are venal bastard criminals and they do not deserve an ounce of praise.

Not to forget the fact that we have any debt in the first place is a complete scam. Debt to who and why? Fraud, corruption, and theft of monetary policy.

And defense spending still increases even with the sequestration cuts. It's increased every single year now for a long time.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

No, what is bullshit is that you know that this is not about celebrating. The fact is that the sequestration is unnecessary.

It is down 50 percent as a percent of GDP just since Bush’s huge $1.4 trillion fiscal 2009 deficit

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Yah and in 2010 it was a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. And last year it was 1.1 trillions.

In respect to GDP is meaningless. Utterly meaningless. You might as well compare the deficit to how many fucks I give.

-edit: this kind of graph is the type of graph republicans and democrats will use to show their believers that they decreased the deficit while simultaneously using another chart to show how it's all the other sides fault that it is still so high.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You just indicated the deficit was reduced $200B. It is going down again in 2013. It will go down more when the politicians stop obstructing proposals that will increase job creation and economic growth.

As soon as we get green jobs pgms, infrastructure jobs pgms going the deficit will melt away.

Don't worry about the deficit. The powers that be want us to worry about that non sense. It's meaningless.

We MUST spend on job creation/stimulus, and forget cutting job creating pgms/austerity.

Don't believe the deficit hype!!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Don't worry about trillions of dollars in scam and fraud?

Sorry but I worry about those things.

Don't believe bogus GDP graph hype about thinking the deficit isn't a problem.

Maybe the banks will downgrade the credit rating again and the scam will continue. This is why I worry about the deficit.

The fact that we have a deficit in the first place is a huge sign of fraud taking place.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

okay I watched the first video. I agree with one aspect of it, stimulus. But the debt is still a scam. It's not something we should just be like it will be fine if we do stimulus. The debt is still a scam. The fact that it exists is a scam. Even when the economy bounces back, you're talking about trillions in revenue overtime, that should be going into the economy and the future, instead it is going into paying the trillions in debt. This is why I am saying the debt is a scam. At the point when the economy is back, if that were to happen, then you're talking about wasting revenue on paying debt instead of going toward the future. This is why I keep saying monetary reform and stimulus like The NEED ACT, HR 2990, is the best solution right now. Every time I've mentioned monetary reform, I've essentially been saying stimulus. If you truly understand the system Kucinich has come up with, we have more wealth with every job we create and all the infrastructure we build. Education, health care, bridges and so much more! Making unemployment a national emergency with mandatory job creation.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

if I rehash political talking points from the tv, will I get upvotes?

downvoted for saying monetary policy should be used for stimulus instead of just handed to banks that keep the system in debt. Nicely done.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

What isn't?

Trillions in debt? I've been saying this entire time that the debt is a scam. Adding to it furthers the scam taking place. There is no reason to have a deficit. Adding trillions to the debt scam is a problem. They use this scam as a justification for cutting needs and use phrases like "we all have to make sacrifices."

MONETARY REFORM LIKE HR 2990. Look it up. Best way to stimulate the economy and take power back from the banks that are crushing us. THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS A SCAM.

You linked me to a bunch of different videos. Which one specifically was your point?

Tax the rich? I support that. I said earlier we need to tax corporate frauds like Goldman in a post near the top.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

This has nothing to do with MMT.

Until there is a full implementation, there will be taxes.

All corporate fraud should be met with full liquidation.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

HR 2990, The NEED Act, has everything to do with discussion of monetary policy.

The current system is a scam.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It seems there's a political motive behind making the deficit magically appear to be not a problem. If the deficit isn't that bad, then they won't need to cut spending or raise taxes. My guess is they'll end the sequestration soon after all the fear stories of job cuts scare the voters into accepting more spending.

The current total federal deficit is actually about 100% of GDP.

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/misc/debt-revenue-and-expenditures-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It isn't a question of the deficit not appearing to be a problem. There is a political motive in justifying the sequester.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Yes but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing aspects of this post which verbatim says "there is no deficit problem" and then uses a magical new scale to act like the deficits is down 50% when really it's down from 1.4 trillion to 1.1 trillion. And maybe next year when it's only 1 trillion, maybe they'll use it to say "look the deficit is still going down!"

And you're right. The sequester is a bullshit political move. The 2 party system gave us a piece of bullshit and another piece of more bullshit. Then they came up with a system that said if they can't agree to each others' bullshit, then super duper bullshit would automatically happen. It's pure bullshit in a fraudulent system.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The deficit will take care of itself. Don't fall for the lies that we must cut pgms of the 99% (starve the beast). it's all bullshit. The corp 1% oligarchs have used their political puppets to cut taxes for thewealthy, put 2 wars on credit and now are completing their plan by saying " oh gee we'll have to cut SS, & medicare, sorry but we gotta cut thedeficit"

BULLSHIT. Fuck the deficit. SPEND for the 99%. Grow the economy. Disregard the corp !% oligarchal fear mongering propaganda.

DON'T believe the hype!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

LOL the deficit will take care of itself? How is the debt scam looking again so far?

We can all go home guys. Everything is going to solve itself.

We don't need a deficit to spend. We need monetary reform. We should NOT have debt in the first place. The deficit and the debt are a scam.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

BULLSHIT!!. Fuck the deficit. SPEND for the 99%. Grow the economy. Disregard the corp 1% oligarchal fear mongering propaganda.

DON'T believe the tea party deficit fear mongering hype!

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I don't believe in tea party bullshit. I also don't believe in the democrats bullshit either.

Reforming monetary policy is the solution to the phony debt and deficit problem. A debt and deficit that exists because of a giant banking scam lead by frauds on wall street.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree we MUST resolve the monetary problems. END THE FED!!!!

But that don't mean submitting to the tea party cut spending bullshit fear mongering deficit crap.

I support stimulus. I support job creation for the 99%. I reject the tea party bullshit. And everyone needs to be reminded that reducing the deficit is the 'starve the beast' plan that libertarian (tea party) fucks have been pushing for 30 years to destroy SS, and Medicare.

You don' have to agree. Many do not. If you don't agree you WILL be challenged vigorously.

That's allowed right? We disagree. No biggie. I can handle that. Can you.?

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Those very policies you're advocating are the ones that created the 2008 crash and caused the 99% to lose so much of their wealth.

That's the problem with stimulus...temporary gains with long term devastating consequences. Like a heroin addict.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No that is NOT a valid approach to determining what created the crash.

If you or anyone is truly interested in understanding the cause you may peruse the links in this post/thread.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-st-criminal-bastards-dont-let-anyone-claim-th/#comment-897804

You will be well educated ifyou read some of those FACTS about the crimes committed against the 99% by the greedy, selfish corp 1% criminal bastards.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

dude....is this VQ again???

You're f'n nuts man....quit hopping on 50 different screen names...seriously wtf is your problem?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Stick to the substance. Those who predict crashes are not to be trusted.

You wanna know who crashed the world economy read through that excellent thread.

I am clearly and obviously inclusionman, Can't you read.? Are you deflecting from the substance because your argument is weak and dishonest? Or do you not believe that the corp 1% oligarchs screwed the 99% when they crashed the world economy and took a trillion in taxpayer bailouts.?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Stimulus did NOT create the crash/great recession!! That is absolutely ridiculous!!

It was obviously the greedy, selfish, corrupt criminal activity of Bush and 'his base' of corp 1% oligarchs that crashed the world economy, created the worst unemployment crises/housing crises in 3 generations and took $1T in taxpayer bailouts as icing on the cake.

Whaddyathink?

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I think we should pay attention to all the people that predicted it to see why it really happened. I love how all of these people come around after the fact and try to describe why the collapse occurred when they never saw it coming (i'm not talking about you...but pundits etc. on TV).

So if we listen to the people who were talking about the bubble building up and predicted the collapse...we should have a pretty idea of what caused it. If you listen to those people....you will see that stimulus was very much the central part of forming the bubble.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I have not once been "submitting to the tea party cut spending bullshit fear mongering deficit crap."

That is more vq style spin.

Acting like any of my comments have anything in common with the tea party is a fucking joke.

We shouldn't have deficits because our monetary policy shouldn't allow it. We shouldn't have deficits because Goldman Sachs SHOULD be paying taxes. Especially since they exist solely because of the taxpayer. These are real issues and they are why we have a deficit. And this is why the deficit is a problem. Debt sells us out to the banks.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree we need monetary reform. END THE FED.!!!

I agree the deficit is used by some to cut the pgms of the 99% (Sequester).

So that's why I say disregard those who scream we must cut the pgms of the 99% to reduce the deficit.

How do we grow the economy ? I've already said: cut raxes forthe working class, raise 'em on the rich!! Invest in stimulas to create jobs, reward insourcing, raise wages.

Stimulus NOT cuts!!

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

If we had another submittal of legislation like HR 2990, the NEED Act, you're looking at an open door to stimulus. All while taking the power back from the banks. Power they never should have had in the first place. Not only has the government gone in great debt, but so have the people. It's an absolute scam to allow banks to have a monopoly on the money supply.

-edit "i'd like to add stimulus for the working class and the poor! Cuts to military spending on bogus wars. Cuts on subsidies to banks and big oil etc"

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree; mil cuts, stimulus like hr2990 might have provided, Ending the fed, break up the banks, creating monetary policy that supports state run public non profit banks, & consumer cr unions.

I also fight for wage increases, cutting taxes on working class, raising on the rich, rewarding insourcing, investing in green jobs/infrastructure jobs, etc.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I haven't accused you of submitting to anyone. You appear confused.

"We shouldn't have deficits"? Ok. great. I agree. So what.? Whatever problem the deficit is, I'm simply saying it will melt away as we grow the economy and there is no need to submit to the tea party scheme to cut the pgms of the 99%.

In fact because we are still suffering from the Bush great recession we MUST stimulate job creation. To hell with the phony deficit we ain't supposed to have.

Oh and monetary policy: END THE FED!!!!, Break UP the BANKS!!

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Under the current system, the deficits show no sign of "melting away."

This is why I am saying the deficits are a huge problem.

They will be used against the people's best interests. For example the sequester, which contains cuts to education. The debts will also be used to downgrade the USA as well. They will be used to weaken our purchasing power and turn our country into a mockery in the world view.

How do you grow the economy in a fraudulent system where the currency enters the economy through a complete scam? We need monetary reform. It will cover the deficits, and also end trillions in debt to the Fed, as well as allow funding for real economic growth.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm

I can go back to Novermber 2012.

this kind of graph is the type of graph republicans and democrats will use to show their believers that they decreased the deficit while simultaneously using another chart to show how it's all the other sides fault that it is still so high.

Do not go there.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

1.4 trillion, 1.3 trillion, 1.1 trillion

time to celebrate!

Again, I never said the deficit isn't decreasing. I'm saying we still have a trillion dollar deficit occurring every year. This is a huge problem and an absolute scam on the American people.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No problem at all. Only the corp 1% oligarchs spew the fear mongering deficit propaganda in order to cut the pgms of the 99%.

Don't believe that tea party bullshit hype!!

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It isn't about celebrating, It has nothing to do with celebrating.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

what's it about?

Because your post is definitely all about how we shouldn't worry that our government is putting us in debt to China, the Federal reserve scam, and more. After all it's down 50%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "there is no deficit problem" lol

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It's a three page article. You can handle it. LOL indeed.

You are starting to look silly.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Silly for what?

You haven't even explained how.

You are silly if you think the trillions in debt problem will solve itself with a government like this... and if you believe a GDP scale is the proper way to measure a deficit.

Until we address monetary policy, all talks of debt reduction, revenue intake, and deficits are bogus.

you are silly if you think "there is no deficit problem." Monetary policy and politicians hijacked by banks is the reason we have deficits in the first place. Deficits that have lead us to be trillions in debt. A debt that is an absolute fraud and shouldn't even exist. How much more will we sell out to China to cover deficits like this?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

But we are dealing with monetary policy. We are protesting to END THE FED!

What else do you want?. We also must fight for tax increases on the rich. Tax cuts for the working class, reward insourcing, increase wages, invest in job creation.

And most of all disregard the tea party fear mongering reduce the deficit propaganda.

Do not let the phony deficit 'starve the beast' bullshit prevent the right economic equity based policies to be implemented.

Stimulus! NOT cuts.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

What's the article about Trev?

Not, what does Trev think it should be about. Sequestration is unnecessary. Yeah?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Now you're changing the subject from which our conversation stemmed on. I said the deficit and the debt are a scam and are a huge problem. That is all my posts have said. That and I said comparing the deficit to the GDP, instead of comparing it to the deficit, is silly.

I don't want to determine if this piece of bullshit, like the sequester, is better than some other piece of bullshit. Either way, bullshit leads to bullshit.

Was the sequester necessary? No. The Congress and the President should be able to write a budget without this kind of bullshit. But they can't because the system they run on is fully corrupt.

We wouldn't have a deficit nor a debt if we had real monetary reform. We could also reduce taxes on lower incomes while providing more education, public health care, and more. But that would be silly wouldn't it?

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

How high are you? What is your debate exactly? Your article contains awesome wisdom along the lines of -we don't need this because the problem is already solving itself.

It's a reference to the Budget Control Act of 2011

or mayhap, you can look here

You do remember that, yeah? Therefore, the point of the article is not Yippee or celebratory as you seem to imply but why is msm ignoring these facts? Further, the sequestration is not necessary and is in fact harmful. The cuts that were put into place stabilize it.

Frankly, Zen was right in that it's an all things being equal and ten years doesn't take into other factors.

you know how much a trillion dollars is? Because it's kind of a big deal, and since this is all just a scam, we pay interest on it.

Yes, do you realize that not only does this hit public housing which will harm a section of society that is one step away from living on the street----there hasn't been any significant moves to get the rest of my people off the street? How about those upcoming furlough days?

And with your original post article, my only problem with that is that it compares the deficit to the GDP and not to deficits nor to the overall debt. I also had a problem with the post suggesting that trillions in deficits isn't a problem. The debt is a scam. It's a problem. And it shouldn't exist. I'm telling you we need monetary reform, not sequestration. And we don't need bogus graphs trying to get people into thinking the deficit isn't a problem. If 2010's deficit was 1.3 trillion, and this year was 1.1 trillion... that's not a 50% decrease. That's really all my "debate" was even about. But now with topics being added, it's branched out

I didn't add topics, you did. In fact, what you wanted to do was to spin off and discuss monetary policy and how debt was a scam etc. and so on. My argument is the same as it was several posts ago.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Please reread my comments. You're trying to create an argument that isn't there.

Zen was incredibly wrong. Anything suggesting people or organizations funded by Goldman Sachs will solve this problem is incredibly inaccurate. He basically said "if we have a democrat president for one more term, we'll be fine." You know how I feel about party hackery.

When discussing debt and deficits - monetary reform is always on topic because proper reform solves the issue. You do know HR 2990 is a huge stimulus package, right?

[-] -3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

How high are you?

Stop trying to debate after smoking a blunt.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

How high are you?

What is your debate exactly?

Your article contains awesome wisdom along the lines of -we don't need this because the problem is already solving itself.

I agree with one aspect of that link, and that is the sequester is bullshit. But to claim the problem is taking care of itself is also bullshit. The article then goes on to talk about plus sides of TARP with bullshit like "TARP and the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also make the deficit improvement look better, boosting the fiscal '09 deficit by about $200 billion more than in fiscal '12"... The article also has more bullshit like "Military spending is now on the decline" even though last year, same year as the article, Defense spending was about 60% of federal discretionary spending and the defense's entire budget has increased every single year over the past 12 years.

With this current trend, we'll only add another 2 trillion to the debt in a little more than 2 years. YAY! Only 2 trillion. Totally solving itself, right? How many years and how many more trillions in debt to a scam until the trend takes us to a surplus?

The debt problem is not solving itself. I'm going to need a blunt after an article like that though. That article also didn't even remotely address any of the real reasons of why there is a deficit in the first place.

Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Because it's kind of a big deal, and since this is all just a scam, we pay interest on it.

And with your original post article, my only problem with that is that it compares the deficit to the GDP and not to deficits nor to the overall debt. I also had a problem with the post suggesting that trillions in deficits isn't a problem.

The debt is a scam. It's a problem. And it shouldn't exist. I'm telling you we need monetary reform, not sequestration. And we don't need bogus graphs trying to get people into thinking the deficit isn't a problem.

If 2010's deficit was 1.3 trillion, and this year was 1.1 trillion... that's not a 50% decrease. That's really all my "debate" was even about. But now with topics being added, it's branched out.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

GF. We are not disputing the statement regarding reduction based on GDP, but rather that it is insignificant as compared to the real deficit (annual and cummulative) numbers. BTW, am still waiting for a response from previous comments.

[+] -4 points by highlander2 (-48) 1 year ago

Hey, Girl Friday, I definitely want whatever ii is that you are smoking