@ Say No to BO:It's easy to confuse the annual federal deficit
with the total federal deficit. The ANNUAL deficit has recently gone down,
but unfortunately still exists. And as long as there is any type of annual
deficit, the TOTAL deficit will keep growing... each year hitting new record
highs. The world has never seen the type of federal deficit the USA
currently has.... not at any time in history or by any other country. In fact,
the deficits of all other countries in the entire world combined don't
equal what the USA currently has. It's totally unprecedented and
legitimately scares economists in the know.Conservatives are
changing their focus to Obamacare because they smell blood in the water. They
anticipate getting quicker political gain with that issue than with continuing
the deficit fight which could cause another government shutdown and then
backfire on the conservatives. But kicking the can down the road
won't solve the problem. Without big economic policy changes, economic
disaster is just a question of time. Our current house of cards will collapse.
But of course short-term political careers are more important than long-term
There seems to be some confusion about the federal deficit. The article
wasn't always crystal clear about a few things.1) The ANNUAL
federal deficit has recently been going down. Instead of over a trillion
($1,000,000,000,000) dollars annually, which it has been during most of
Obama's years, it's recently fallen to about 2/3 of a trillion. So
even though the ANNUAL deficit is falling, the TOTAL federal deficit is still
growing. 2) The TOTAL federal deficit is currently over $17 trillion
and will be approximately $18 trillion ($18,000,000,000,000) by the end of this
year. The federal government is still spending nearly $2 billion
($2,000,000,000) more every DAY than it takes in. 3) The total
federal deficit has essentially doubled since Obama come into office. That means
(in essence) it's risen as much during his term as in all previous
administrations combined. This problem is not going away. Without
intervention, It will eventually cause massive inflation per established
economic law. Without bigger changes, our economy will eventually collapse.
It's simply a question of time. Sadly, politicians are becoming cowards by
kicking the can down the road.
@ the old switcharoo - mesa, AZ - "Don't confuse budget with earnings.
The country "earns" as in GDP of in the 15 trillion dollars per year.
The government provides services that many so called americans are unwilling to
pay completely for in their taxes so we are borrowing money even though we have
enough earnings to pay for the government's activities. Conservatives love
to complain but still want their farm subsidies and SS checks."What part of "the U.S. spends more than it receives in tax dollars or
other 'earnings'" don't you understand?You
can't suguracoat it....we're $17 trillion in debt and it's
getting worse every day.And, as a conservative, I don't believe
in farm subsidies or Social Security. I'm not a farmer, so I've never
been given a farm subsidy, and I would prefer it if the Feds gave me back every
penny I ever paid into Social Security and they just leave me alone. You want
"security"?.....work and save for it yourself.
If an administration starts with a yearly surplus, then still produces huge
deficits over an eight year period, the administration's party goes to the
sidelines and becomes a minority.No explanation needed.
Don't confuse budget with earnings. The country "earns" as in GDP
of in the 15 trillion dollars per year. The government provides services that
many so called americans are unwilling to pay completely for in their taxes so
we are borrowing money even though we have enough earnings to pay for the
government's activities. Conservatives love to complain but
still want their farm subsidies and SS checks.
If a business consistently spends more than it earns, they go bankrupt.If an individual consistently spends more than they earn, they go bankrupt.If a family consistently spends more than they take in, they go
bankrupt.If a city consistently spends more than they take in, they
go bankrupt.If a county consistently spends more than they take in,
they go bankrupt.If a state consistently spends more than they take
in, they go brankrupt.And yet, somehow, a nation that consistently
spends more than it takes in and is currently $17 TRILLION in debt, and getting
deeper and deeper in debt every day, somehow.....that nation is NOT going to go
bankrupt?Please explain that one to me.....
There is plenty of waste and over spending in the military. But as the article
highlights, entitlement programs and spending account for 2/3 of the annual
budget, and is growing.It is becoming more difficult to find areas
to cut (and make a significant difference) in the discretionary, non-entitlement
areas of the budget. Likewise, we spent $450 billion on interest
alone. Our 2014 interest payments on our federal debt is nearly $150 billion
already. By paying down some debt we could use some of the interest dollars to
buy more stakes for Old Switcharoo, or maybe spend more on schools, or roads, or
reduce taxes. The possibilities are endless.It's fine to argue
about smaller aspects of the budget. But the elephant in the room is still
We would have a balanced budget if our military spending was the same as
Canada's. Why in the world should be police the entire planet and spend
more on the military than all other nations combined do? That's
the problem. When I was in the Air Force we replaced $50,000 glowing tube
airplane radios nearly daily per jet fighter and had steak dinners twice a week.
Thanks taxpayers. You may want to look there however for some savings
I recall the GOP presidential debate moment when the candidates were asked to
raise their hands if they would oppose a budget deal involving 10% tax increases
and 90% spending cuts. Every hand went up because no one wanted to be regarded
as "soft on cuts". I don't think it would be different for
today's would-be candidates.
I believe a majority of Americans, including Independents and Conservatives,
would agree to increased taxes IF the government could first demonstrate fiscal
restraint and cut spending.One problem today is that we have a large
segment of voters that distrust government (whether the distrust is directed
toward the president or congress, or both) because these political leaders have
failed to solve problems. We perceive that they only machinate to protect their
own seats of power and their own wealth, ahead of solving national problems
(debt, immigration, health care, tax reform, entitlement reform, military
reform, education reform, religious liberty, environmental concerns, energy, and
on and on.IF government would FIRST demonstrate a collaborative
effort to restrain spending, and present a long-term plan for debt reduction, I
am confident that Americans would rally around that plan even if it included tax
increases. This so that our children and grandchildren would not be
enslaved to debt, and China, and whatever else.
Herein lies a great challenge. When someone tries to cut my charitable giving
deduction, or my mortgage deduction, I instinctively revolt against losing
benefits. When we talk of reducing social security and
medicare/medicaid benefits, or a host of other "entitlement" programs,
there will be a large group of voters who will rise up against such efforts.Then along comes a candidate, in this case Barack Obama, who promises
healthcare subsidies, free birth control, and a number of other give-aways
(several years ago it was Bush who pushed through prescription benefits) and we
adjust to a new expectation of entitlements and benefits. The wise
get furrowed brows and speak of insolvency, of national bankruptcy. The foolish
declare "It will never happen (Just ignore Detroit, and Stockton)". A serious debate hasn't materialized because when one side tries to
be states-man-like, the other side throws accusations of "Tea Party
fanatics", "Hysterical nonsense".Have we created a
laboratory where it is nearly impossible for leaders to do the right thing?
What is the right thing? More spending? Budget control & debt reduction?
Consumption & debt. Its going to hurt us all,
This is truly a liberal view of the debt in the US. Obama would like the
public concern for it to disappear. It won't. How does one sweep an
annual $500 billion deficit, or more, under the rug? He and others
have gotten used to these low interest rates and how the debt payments are not
overwhelming the rest of the budget. This might end as well. Grand
plan of the libs and probably the current president, though he will be gone in
two years, is forgiveness of the debt. The US would declare bankruptcy, have
the debt partly eliminated and restructured, and start anew. I mean, heck, it is
mainly the Chinese who would suffer, as we are told they are ones who mostly buy
our treasury bonds. The national deficit issue is not going away.
Please help me understand the information above.If the debt and the
deficit are shrinking and bond buying has kept government interest rates at low
levels and government spending is under control...why did we just need to raise
the debt ceiling?Something in Denmark really reeks.