Obama's deficit in pictures

[sarawind]

But all of this is off the point. I get the feeling you guys are cool with Obama's projected spending. At least, in order to accept it, you take solice in thinking, "it's not his fault, it's Bush's."?

It's a monumental waste of time trying to convince libs of anything factual as they are all about feelings and share the same brain.

 

[Lynnie]

Well, the way I see the graph which you can digg or not, it's just the way I interpret it:

During war our spending always increases. Always! Obama has inherited the tail end of the conflict (no longer war for US and allies) in Iraq and he has declared an end to it in August 2010? In all fairhness, I am looking forward to 2011 (since we won't be in Iraq then); and, it is looking like about $850B-$900B with a decrease in military and conflict/war efforts. This is still double the last administration during war and conflict.

Clinton had a surplus of budget in 2000, his last year in office, but still carried a hefty deficit in relation to GDP which is the standard measurement.

So, when I see these numbers: :shock::shock: I don't see how we can as a nation be for this.....as it equates to entitlements. These entitlements are different than any of us have ever experienced before.

Note the run-up in debt starting in 1942. That's equivalent to $10 trillion today. That pulled the economy out of the great depression and into high gear to win World War II.


My graph enlarged itself (no pun intended, I'm sure). I need Traderx to hep me with graphs, evidently.

 

[Mango]

I've never paid much attention to the Heritage Foundation graphs or numbers because, quite frankly, it is a Republican Think Tank and famous for skewing numbers in their favor. I see they made a disclaimer that the chart came from WaPo, but that doesn't influence me one way or another. I would feel the same way about a Liberal Think Tank.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.

Take for example the above which links to an article which calls it spending when actually it is proposal to tax to bring more money into the Medicare Program and revamp it. Why? Because many of the facets of it stink to high hell.
It's to ask seniors earning over $170,000 to pay more into the system. Now, I don't know about you, but if I am fortunate to have that income when I reach 65 -- and may likely have to survive given my age-- I have no problem paying more than the $40 or so dollars for Prescription coverage to help other seniors who may not be living on that income, but struggling with drug costs. Right now Medicare pays up to $2700 of drug costs, then after that, $4300 comes out of pocket. For seniors without Medigap or supplemental insurance, that can be an extreme hardship. Tier 2 drugs alone can put a senior in a gap within months.

Just based on that presentation alone on that graph, it lost any credence whatsoever with me. What a waste.

 

[Lynnie]

I've never paid much attention to the Heritage Foundation graphs or numbers because, quite frankly, it is a Republican Think Tank and famous for skewing numbers in their favor. I see they made a disclaimer that the chart came from WaPo, but that doesn't influence me one way or another. I would feel the same way about a Liberal Think Tank.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.

Take for example the above which links to an article which calls it spending when actually it is proposal to tax to bring more money into the Medicare Program and revamp it. Why? Because many of the facets of it stink to high hell.
It's to ask seniors earning over $170,000 to pay more into the system. Now, I don't know about you, but if I am fortunate to have that income when I reach 65 -- and may likely have to survive given my age-- I have no problem paying more than the $40 or so dollars for Prescription coverage to help other seniors who may not be living on that income, but struggling with drug costs. Right now Medicare pays up to $2700 of drug costs, then after that, $4300 comes out of pocket. For seniors without Medigap or supplemental insurance, that can be an extreme hardship. Tier 2 drugs alone can put a senior in a gap within months.

Just based on that presentation alone on that graph, it lost any credence whatsoever with me. What a waste.

Are you talking about the first graph or the one pertaining to GDP? I agree with what you say on drugs for seniors.

The pharaceutical companies do offer hardship programs for some. Not sure how it works.....but, in my experience with disease management and pharma carve outs, it's pretty danged criminal on one hand - on the other hand, I am a true advocate for capitalism. There should be more of a middle ground on this.

 

[TooFarTampa]

You are okay with a budget deficit of almost $2 trillion?

As for Bush, I know of nobody that defends his deficits. And to my memory, folks have been complaining about deficits at least since Reagan.

I said stated overarching philosophy. As far as I know Obama has not gotten up and talked about how much he loves spending money and wants us to be a socialist country. Energy, health care, education are all things that need attention and have been ignored for far too long. I shouldn't have to explain why. I don't share your super-small government ideal and while paying taxes can be frustrating they don't give me the willies if spent on worthy things. (Again, that is a matter of perspective.) Obviously at the same time I want us to get back to balanced budgets.

I recognize that Obama is downplaying the impact of all this deficit spending and trying to front-load a lot of his "change" into the first two years, in case the Dems lose their majority in 2010.

But ... it appears that the future projections are very much a moving target, so while the chart is scary, it may not play out that way.

What I am trying to understand are the details. What is the budget for? It is easy to decry a big unimaginable number, but harder to go through the budget section by section to say, no this is bad, yes, this is important and could save us money or strengthen our economy down the line. That's the level of detail I am looking for. I would love to email my congresswoman, who historically is a pretty good listener, some feedback. Any links to good, fair analysis that could be posted here would be quite helpful.

 

[woodworker]

I think someone posted this link before in a related thread. Is this what you're looking for? -

Obama’s 2010 Federal Budget Explained in Plain English | OnlineForexTrading.com

 

[traderx]

I said stated overarching philosophy. As far as I know Obama has not gotten up and talked about how much he loves spending money and wants us to be a socialist country. Energy, health care, education are all things that need attention and have been ignored for far too long. I shouldn't have to explain why. I don't share your super-small government ideal and while paying taxes can be frustrating they don't give me the willies if spent on worthy things. (Again, that is a matter of perspective.) Obviously at the same time I want us to get back to balanced budgets.

I recognize that Obama is downplaying the impact of all this deficit spending and trying to front-load a lot of his "change" into the first two years, in case the Dems lose their majority in 2010.

But ... it appears that the future projections are very much a moving target, so while the chart is scary, it may not play out that way.

What I am trying to understand are the details. What is the budget for? It is easy to decry a big unimaginable number, but harder to go through the budget section by section to say, no this is bad, yes, this is important and could save us money or strengthen our economy down the line. That's the level of detail I am looking for. I would love to email my congresswoman, who historically is a pretty good listener, some feedback. Any links to good, fair analysis that could be posted here would be quite helpful.

How do we go from huge deficits to a balanced budget?

 

[TooFarTampa]

How do we go from huge deficits to a balanced budget?

I have no idea. But I get the sense that the government is taking on a lot of this unfortunate economic unwinding on its own shoulders (bailouts) so individuals, especially the middle class, can work on their own balance sheets. Over time, once the economy is humming again, those debts will have to be absorbed by individuals in the form of taxes. The deficits have been a problem since Reagan, right? Well, if this is the worst of it, it may take 10-15 years to balance the budget and 25 years to pay off the debt. Again -- no idea. Just a guess.

 

[Bob]

It's a monumental waste of time trying to convince libs of anything factual as they are all about feelings and share the same brain.

libs, how about people? i am a registered republican, at least until i get the energy to go to the library and change to "no party affiliation". i voted for gw twice. i am not a "lib". gw and the repubs have utterly decimated our country. please face up to that "fact" and i will listen to your rants, deliberations, and theories. here's a huge hint, the "libs" did not throw the repubs out of power. the independents and moderate republicans blew out the bible thumping war mongers. "libs", i love it!

 

[Bob]

How do we go from huge deficits to a balanced budget?

we are never again going to balance the budget until the "day o' default". the last president to balance will be clinton.