Obama '08?

perhaps you could direct your question to the Office of Management and Budget.

I went back, Foxfyre, and looked at the OMB bar charts which, with my trusty architect's scale, I translated into %'s. I read it correctly, but I can not begin to explain the discrepancy.
I might search some other sites tomorrow, but for tonight I will see how badly I am losing to the Tubas in Fantasy Baseball and will go to bed.

Not important. There are so many different factors involved in those figures anyway that the raw data doesn't tell the whole story anyway.

It is safe to say though that government is too big and it spends too much no matter who is in the White House and it has been that way for a very long time now.

Your number for Bush is incorrect MM.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Date 01/16/2009
Total public held debt $10,628,881,485,510.23

Another report on the public debt:


From: www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

If we use Parados' number, the national debt increased by $4.8 trillion from 9/30/2001 to the date of Parados' debt.

We must also remember that we are now in Bush's budget period. From 9/30/2000 to 9/30/2008, the deficit increased by $4.35 trillion dollars.

According to this graph, Bush increased national debt to 75% of GDP.

You do know that reality is much worse than you graph, Because GDP used to mean goods and services and now a lot of it is made up of all the useless fianncial services crap that Wallstreet has wrecked our economy with.......! Take away the phony bologna pushing money around in the GDP and debt is as bad and probably worse than it was Post ww2, AND WE HAVE ALMOST NOTHING TO SHOW FOR THE MONEY WE BLEW.

Mysteryman wrote:

Re: cicerone imposter (Post 3645222)
You didnt ask me those questions, so I didnt answer them.

But if you insist...

Quote:
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 08 May 2009 at 11:06:04 PM GMT is:
$11,260,273,077,548.83
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

And on Jan 19, 2009 it was 8.99 trillion dollars.
That was the last day of the Bush admin.

So it has gone UP almost 3 trillion since Obama took office.

And ANY debt is to high.

******************************************************************

End of quote.

I saw no rebuttal of this post.

An excellent examination of where we are headed economically--


By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
The House and Senate are preparing to pass President Barack Obama's radical budget blueprint, with only minor modifications, by using (abusing would be more accurate) the budget "reconciliation" process. This process circumvents the Senate's normal rules requiring 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. Reconciliation was created by Congress in the mid-1970s to enforce deficit reduction, the opposite of what the president and his party are aiming for.


APThe immense increase in nondefense spending and taxes, and the tripling of the national debt in Mr. Obama's budget, have been the subject of considerable scrutiny since it was announced. Mr. Obama and his economic officials respond, not without justification, that he inherited an enormous economic and financial crisis and a large deficit. All presidents present the best possible case for their budgets, but a mind-numbing array of numbers offers innumerable opportunities to conjure up misleading comparisons.

Mr. Obama's characterizations of his budget unfortunately fall into this pattern. He claims to reduce the deficit by half, to shave $2 trillion off the debt (the cumulative deficit over his 10-year budget horizon), and not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. While in a Clintonian sense correct (depends on what the definition of "is" is), it is far more accurate to describe Mr. Obama's budget as almost tripling the deficit. It adds $6.5 trillion to the national debt, and leaves future U.S. taxpayers (many of whom will make far less than $250,000) with the tab. And all this before dealing with the looming Medicare and Social Security cost explosion.

Some have laid the total estimated deficits and debt projections (as more realistically tallied by the Congressional Budget Office) on Mr. Obama's doorstep. But on this score the president is correct. He cannot rightly be blamed for what he inherited. A more accurate comparison calculates what he has already added and proposes to add by his policies, compared to a "do-nothing" baseline (see nearby chart).

The CBO baseline cumulative deficit for the Obama 2010-2019 budget is $9.3 trillion. How much additional deficit and debt does Mr. Obama add relative to a do-nothing budget with none of his programs? Mr. Obama's "debt difference" is $4.829 trillion -- i.e., his tax and spending proposals add $4.829 trillion to the CBO do-nothing baseline deficit. The Obama budget also adds $177 billion to the fiscal year 2009 budget. To this must be added the $195 billion of 2009 legislated add-ons (e.g., the stimulus bill) since Mr. Obama's election that were already incorporated in the CBO baseline and the corresponding $1.267 trillion in add-ons for 2010-2019. This brings Mr. Obama's total additional debt to $6.5 trillion, not his claimed $2 trillion reduction. That was mostly a phantom cut from an imagined 10-year continuation of peak Iraq war spending.

The claim to reduce the deficit by half compares this year's immense (mostly inherited) deficit to the projected fiscal year 2013 deficit, the last of his current term. While it is technically correct that the deficit would be less than half this year's engorged level, a do-nothing budget would reduce it by 84%. Compared to do-nothing, Mr. Obama's deficit is more than two and a half times larger in fiscal year 2013. Just his addition to the budget deficit, $459 billion, is bigger than any deficit in the nation's history. And the 2013 deficit is supposed to be after several years of economic recovery, funds are being returned from the financial bailouts, and we are out of Iraq.

Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.

What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama's plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In ten years, interest would bring the total to well over $200,000, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding ten years, the tax hike per year would average almost $26,000.) That's in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama's budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits.

We can get a rough idea of who is likely to pay them by distributing this $6.5 trillion of future taxes according to the most recent distribution of income-tax burdens. We know the top 1% or 5% of income-taxpayers pay vastly disproportionate shares of taxes, and much larger shares than their shares of income. But it also turns out that Mr. Obama's massive additional debt implies a tax hike, if paid today, of well over $100,000 for people with incomes of $150,000, far below Mr. Obama's tax-hike cut-off of $250,000 (over $130,000 in ten years and over $16,000 a year if paid annually over the following ten years). In other words, a middle-aged two-career couple in New York or California could get a future tax bill as big as their mortgage.

While Mr. Obama's higher tax rates are economically harmful, some of his tax policies deserve wide support, e.g., permanently indexing the alternative minimum tax. Ditto some of the spending increases, including the extension of unemployment benefits, given the severe recession.

Neither a large deficit in a recession nor a small increase from the current modest level in the debt to GDP ratio is worrisome. And at a 50% debt-to-GDP ratio, with nominal GDP growing 4% (the CBO out-year forecast), deficits of 2% of GDP would not be increasing the debt burden relative to income.

But what is not just worrisome but dangerous are the growing trillion dollar deficits in the latter years of the Obama budget. These deficits are so large for a prosperous nation in peacetime -- three times safe levels -- that they would cause the debt burden to soar toward banana republic levels. That's a recipe for a permanent drag on growth and serious pressure on the Federal Reserve to inflate, not the new era of rising prosperity that Mr. Obama and his advisers foresee.

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

*********************************************************************

BO WILL ALMOST TRIPLE THE DEFICIT??????

You must have missed Parados's post.

Some of you are having a real tough time grasping the fact that Bush is no longer the president.

The current a future situations are owned by Obama.

hawkeye, Can you point out the weakness in the graph based on inconsistency of the measurements? If the graph measures apples to apples, what's your beef?

You still havent answered my question.

When did you change your mind and become an advocate for torture?
You must have, because you have said you want to watch someone being tortured.

So,are you now advocating using torture, or do you have some sort of fetish?

Something you fail to see or understand; Cheney and some on these threads do not think waterboarding is torture or illegal. If it's what they claim, then they should volunteer to have themselves waterboarded like Sean Hannity who talks big, but doesn't even comply with his own statement of getting waterboarded for charity.

They're all chicken hearted, and that may include you!

I have already been waterboarded, as part of my training in the military.
I can assure you its not a fun process.
But you are the one that has opposed torture in the past, yet now you not only favor it, but your own words say you want to watch it.

These are your exact words...



So either you are in favor of torture, or you have some sick fetish.

That's right; Cheney is the one who authorized waterboarding. If he thinks it's not against both domestic and international laws, he should have it done to himself since it's not torture. Just for the fun of it.

So once again you admit to supporting torture.

How interesting.

Are you really that dumb? But I repeat myself. What do you think I've been saying, dummy?

BTW, I also would like to see Sean Hannity waterboarded since he's the one that made the offer for charity.

Then if you support torture for some people, why do you oppose using it on others?

Cicerone Imposter again reveals his massive stupidity. He is obviously a non-reader since he has missed this critical story about "water-boarding".

QUOTE:

"On September 4, 2002, Porter Goss, then the chairman of the Hose Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, AND NANCY PELOSI, the ranking Democratic member, were given a classified briefing by the CIA on what the Agency calls "enhanced interrogation techniques"....These days Speaker PELOSI insists she heard and saw no evil...That doesn't square with the memory of Mr. Goss. Ms Pelosi's denials are difficult to square with a chronology of 40CIA briefings to Congressional members and compiled by the CIA and released this week by Director Leon Panetta(Obama's pick to run the CIA). The notes for the September 4th meeting read: Briefing on enhanced interrogation techniques, including use of enhanced interrogation techniques AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTICULAR ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT HAD BEEN EMPLOYED."


Source--Wall Street Journal--"What Congress Knew"--May 9th and 10th, 2009- _P. A 14.

Iknow that Cicerone Imposter is almost dyslexic, but if he tries very hard, he may be able to understand the paragraph above. He will not, however, be able to produce any evidence to show that it is not true.

Pelosi is a lair. She is a stupid liar since she knows that notes are kept concerning the subjects discussed at important meetings and she is aware that the names of the participants are also recorded.