U.S. set to make $8 billion from bailing out Citigroup

[AceTracer]

An $8 billion return on an 18 month investment? Maybe the US Government is better at business than we thought.


The Obama administration is making final preparations to sell its stake in the New York bank, according to industry and federal sources.

At today's prices, the sale would net more than $8 billion, by far the largest profit returned from any firm that accepted bailout funds and the transaction would be the second-largest stock sale in history.

Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36062775/ns/business-washington_post/)

[MrJim]

Wow, $8 Billion ... slow down, Washington, you don't want to make back $13 Trillion too fast now! :rolleyes:

[Phoenix]

Holy shit. The government did something halfway plausible with all this bailout bullshit???
Yet more proof that the world is ending.

[LedZap]

And now the Dems are ready to spent it on entitlements instead of paying down the debt.............idiots.

[Phoenix]

And now the Dems are ready to spent it on entitlements instead of paying down the debt.............idiots.
Yep. Knew it was too good to be true.

[AceTracer]

And now the Dems are ready to spent it on entitlements instead of paying down the debt.............idiots.
Do you have a source saying exactly what the government plans to do with the money, or is this just something you assume they're going to do?

Also, and I've always been curious about this, why are conservatives only interested in the federal deficit and national debt when Democrats are in power? Particularly when Republicans have been the all time biggest spenders over the last several decades?

http://laovoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/debts_usa.jpg

[MrJim]

Your chart stops before Obama's presidency begins.

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/president_obama_budget_national_debt.jpg

[WhiteRaven]

Your chart doesn't take congress into account, either. Congress is actually in a better position to control the economy than the president.

And let's not forget FDR was complete dickhead, and a democrat, Mr. All democrats are perfect.


FDR was a Democrat and an egotistical monster who wanted to be king. Yes, that is harsh, but I'm going to stick by my statement. He did more than anyone in American history to shit all over our Constitution. In a practical sense, we lost our balance of power and very nearly our democracy under FDR. We only gained it back because Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were better men.

FDR ruled by executive order, declaring things law, and sending them to congress to pass the next day, often without finished text. When the Supreme Court struck down a number of his "New Deal" policies... he threatened to simply nominate a few new justices... the court backed down. FDR also broke President Washington's precedent of only running for two terms, which is essential for balance between the executive and the courts. FDR won four terms... this allowed him to pack the court with a bunch of his ideological cronies who were willing to sign on to any of his schemes.

I'm not done with FDR. His most offensive violation of our Constitution and of human rights was Executive Order 9066 in which he imprisoned over 100,000 Japanese nationals and American Citizens based purely on their race. They lost their homes and their businesses because of this tyrant's rule by fiat. Short of slavery, this was the most flagrant violation of the the wording of our Constitution ever committed. Fuck you FDR... fuck you!

Yup... still not done with FDR. He raised top marginal tax rates as high as 90%, and he ran the farm sector like a command economy with price controls and output quotas. Surprise... farm output went down disasterously. The government started paying large farming operations to destroy crops and livestock during a time of food shortages. FDR redistributed taxes to swing states and political cronies, and sold so much government debt he crowded out all sorts of private investment... making a proper recovery from the Great Depression that much more difficult.

http://arthurshall.com/x_2009_presidents.shtml

[LedZap]

Your chart stops before Obama's presidency begins.

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/president_obama_budget_national_debt.jpg

He thought no one would notice that. ..Quote..."Particularly when Republicans have been the all time biggest spenders over the last several decades"....Hilarious .

[MrJim]

He thought no one would notice that. ..Quote..."Particularly when Republicans have been the all time biggest spenders over the last several decades"....Hilarious .

Something else worth noting: even at the lowest level of Clinton's spending, he was spending more than Reagan. Acetracer's chart conveniently clumps two presidents serving a total of 12 years into "Republican President" AND, as a bonus, offers no explanation for the spending.

[beelzebub]

Do you have a source saying exactly what the government plans to do with the money, or is this just something you assume they're going to do?
Also, and I've always been curious about this, why are conservatives only interested in the federal deficit and national debt when Democrats are in power? Particularly when Republicans have been the all time biggest spenders over the last several decades?
http://laovoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/debts_usa.jpg


Excellent post Ace, I am sure the Repubs on the forum will have many fabricated responses and unsubstantiated sources to argue against this.

[LedZap]

Your chart stops before Obama's presidency begins.

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/president_obama_budget_national_debt.jpg

Hey Bub... uh , I guess you didn't read this (or the other) posting.

[MrJim]

Hey Bub... uh , I guess you didn't read this (or the other) posting.

Get used to it. BZ is quite accustom to agree with ANYTHING that supports any liberal stance. It's his one weakness that prevents that otherwise intelligent brain of his from shifting into high gear..

[AceTracer]

Your chart stops before Obama's presidency begins.

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/president_obama_budget_national_debt.jpg
My chart is also based on fact, not wild speculation.

[AceTracer]

Your chart doesn't take congress into account, either. Congress is actually in a better position to control the economy than the president.
Your point? Republicans controlled Congress between 2001 and 2006. Look at that chart again and tell me what happened to spending in that time. What happened? And you can't blame it all on 9/11 either, which happened at the end of 2001. The debt had already gone from $18 billion to $133 billion, up to $421 billion the next year, and setting records every year thereafter.


And let's not forget FDR was complete dickhead, and a democrat.
He also won World War II and got us out of the Great Depression. He's largely considered, by any historian of merit, the greatest president of the 20th century, if not ever. Only Lincoln has comparable favorability ratings, but I'm sure some of you have issues with him too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_St ates

[AceTracer]

Acetracer's chart conveniently clumps two presidents serving a total of 12 years into "Republican President" AND, as a bonus, offers no explanation for the spending.
Here's another chart that breaks it down by president.

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart_2006-email.jpg

[LedZap]

You forgot Obama's spending again. Really Ace , do you want anyone to take you seriously?

[MrJim]

My chart is also based on fact, not wild speculation.

It's Obama's BUDGET for crying out loud. This is also just the amount allocated since the table was published last year, not counting any additional, unrecognized spending.

[hitekredneck]

what i get a kick out of, is this nut don't get the fact that it isn't a party thing, it's ALL politicians that overspend without thinking about budgeting

[MrJim]

Another issue going on right now is the double standard - blaming Bush for Obama's spending. By that reasoning, we would blame Clinton for Bush's spending. Has anyone considered that the baby boomers are driving the surge as the soon-to-be-bankrupt Medicare and Social Security payments are piling onto the debtload? The national debt trend has been up since the 70s.

Another fun little chart:

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/09/24/bamabudgetdeficitsreach99percentofgdp.jpg

[AceTracer]

It's Obama's BUDGET for crying out loud. This is also just the amount allocated since the table was published last year, not counting any additional, unrecognized spending.
No, it's not. It's speculation, by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, of what the budget might be in the next decade. Look at the source in the chart.

Congress doesn't release budgets further than one year in advance, so you're welcome to look at last year's budget, and this year's budget, but anything else is pure speculation.

[AceTracer]

Another issue going on right now is the double standard - blaming Bush for Obama's spending. By that reasoning, we would blame Clinton for Bush's spending. Has anyone considered that the baby boomers are driving the surge as the soon-to-be-bankrupt Medicare and Social Security payments are piling onto the debtload? The national debt trend has been up since the 70s.
This doesn't make any sense. How are we blaming Bush for Obama's spending? How does that even work? What spending are we blaming Bush for that Obama did instead?


Another fun little chart:

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/09/24/bamabudgetdeficitsreach99percentofgdp.jpg
That is the same chart. By the same people. Again, pure speculation.

[AceTracer]

what i get a kick out of, is this nut don't get the fact that it isn't a party thing, it's ALL politicians that overspend without thinking about budgeting
So why aren't you criticizing all politicians? Where were these critiques about spending the last 8 years?

Also, I'm careful never to make any personal attacks in this forum. It's a shame you can't do the same thing.

[AceTracer]

You forgot Obama's spending again. Really Ace , do you want anyone to take you seriously?

Ok, here are the numbers (http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm) including Obama's first year in office.

If you'll notice the year over year numbers (YoY), the rate of spending went DOWN during Obama's first year.

Note also that this cites real numbers provided by bipartisan government agencies, not speculative numbers provided by a conservative think tank.

[hitekredneck]

So why aren't you criticizing all politicians? Where were these critiques about spending the last 8 years?

Also, I'm careful never to make any personal attacks in this forum. It's a shame you can't do the same thing.

believe me, the only thing i despise more than a politician is pedophiles....too many get addicted to the power of leadership without regard to the consequences of their actions...and i don't feel we've had even a half-assed decent president since reagan

[AceTracer]

Here are the projected deficit and debt increases, as provided by the bipartisan OMB (Office of Management and Budget) through 2015. Again, these are speculative numbers, so it may be more or less than this, but they are numbers provided by a reputable government agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_Budget_-_Deficit_and_Debt_Increases.png

[MrJim]

If you'll notice the year over year numbers (YoY), the rate of spending went DOWN during Obama's first year.

I think you should look at that table again:
National Debt at the end of 2008 was very bad at $10,699,804,864,612 and 74.1% of GDP, but
National Debt at the end of 2009 was a much worse $12,311,349,677,512 and 86.3% of GDP.

More than $1.6 Trillion in new debt in a year is not an improvement.

Per capita, the 'improvement' reflects a slowdown in the swelling debt, not a reduction. There has not been noticable reduction since taxes were raised (disguised as social program funding) when Social Security and Medicare were created.

For a more accurate glimpse of the democrats' failure, remember that they took control of office in 2006. Debt per capita went from $29,070 at the end of 2006 to $40,101 at the end of 2009. Where is all this reduction in debt and spending taking place? It's certainly not on the table. There is one blip on the table in the year ending 2000, which was the result of higher GDP preceeding the dot-com bust and preparations for the Y2K 'crisis' that failed to materialize.

The debt will be reduced ONLY if taxes are increased and/or GDP soars, the former of which is inevitable. Only this time around, there are no social programs that come to mind to disguise new/higher taxes.

[MrJim]

This doesn't make any sense. How are we blaming Bush for Obama's spending? How does that even work? What spending are we blaming Bush for that Obama did instead?

This comment was not directed at you actually. It was a conversational piece with hitek. How many times have you heard about the 'Bush Recession' in conversation with your colleagues? I was making a point about the blame game.



That is the same chart. By the same people. Again, pure speculation.

No, this time we are covering 1960-2019 (projected) in order to show the upward trend which began in 1974. 'Projected' and 'Speculative', though similar in meaning, are not the same concepts. I could speculate based on a camel farting in Iraq that in 2015, oil will reach $400 a barrel. Projected numbers focus on more mathematical/statistical pieces of information. The adminstration actually announced its debt ceiling, near $13 trillion, a while back. True it can change, but as of yet, there is no basis for an adjustment.

[MrJim]

No, it's not. It's speculation, by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, of what the budget might be in the next decade.

No, Obama signed a debt ceiling into law. ABC News, not a conservative think tank, reported this a couple of months ago:

President Obama Signs Law Raising Public Debt Limit from $12.4 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-signs-law-raising-public-debt-limit-from-124-trillion-to-143-trillion.html)

Actually, thanks for giving me the opportunity to fish that one out... I was wrong, the debt ceiling was raised to an even higher $14.3 Trillion. Ouch.


(Feb. 12, 2010) Behind closed doors and with no cameras present, President Obama signed into law Friday afternoon the bill raising the public debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

[MrJim]

Here are the projected deficit and debt increases, as provided by the bipartisan OMB (Office of Management and Budget) through 2015. Again, these are speculative numbers, so it may be more or less than this, but they are numbers provided by a reputable government agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_Budget_-_Deficit_and_Debt_Increases.png

Your big red 'X' (from Wikipedia) is not of much use. :rolleyes:

[AceTracer]

Here you go.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/2010_Budget_-_Deficit_and_Debt_Increases.png

[AceTracer]

I think you should look at that table again:
National Debt at the end of 2008 was very bad at $10,699,804,864,612 and 74.1% of GDP, but
National Debt at the end of 2009 was a much worse $12,311,349,677,512 and 86.3% of GDP.

More than $1.6 Trillion in new debt in a year is not an improvement.

Per capita, the 'improvement' reflects a slowdown in the swelling debt, not a reduction.
That is exactly what I said. The rate of spending has gone down during Obama's first year in office.

The only time the actual debt has gone down was during Clinton's last year in office. Of course, Bush got rid of that surplus post haste.

[MrJim]

Here is the correct link.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/2010_Budget_-_Deficit_and_Debt_Increases.png)
What does the debt ceiling have to do with the budget? They are entirely different things.

Well if I have a credit card with a limit of $5,000, that is my debt ceiling. If I have $500, that's my budget unless I decide to borrow on my card, then $5500 is my budget. By raising the debt ceiling to $14 Trillion, Obama is raising the government's credit line, something you don't do 'just because.' There should be no doubt in a smart fellow's mind that he intends to utilize that borrowing capacity.

[MrJim]

The rate of spending has gone down during Obama's first year in office.[/B]

Okay, Ace, you win on the semantics of this statement, but the rate of spending is still intolerably high, and we have 3 more years riding on Obama's coattails. If projections of $14 Trillion come to fruition, debt will increase by $3.4 Trillion by 2012. Not a good number.

[AceTracer]

The fact remains, over the last 30 years more spending has been done under Republicans than Democrats. And the largest increase in spending ever was done under a Republican president and a Republican Congress.

So far in his first year, Obama is continuing the trend of less spending under Democrats. We'll see what happens in the next 3 years.

[MrJim]

And the fact also remains that new presidents are often stuck with another party's congress and a previous presidents' dirty laundry. Obama was elected while congress was under democrats' control, and the unwitting public fell for it. Poor, poor, ignorant America.

Yes, we'll see what happens in the next 3 years. We will see. :)

I hope that I am absolutely wrong. "Told ya so" won't buy my dinner. I hope Obama reduces the deficit, cuts taxes, brings the unemployment rate to zero, revamps health and education, rescues social security & medicare, eliminates pollution, gains energy independence, creates world peace, balances the world's currencies, solves immigration, cures cancer, and we're all dancing around the campfire drinking beer and singing the theme to smurfs. He'd best get started, mid-terms are this November.

[Tein]

Maybe hope is on the rise not only for americans, but the world. Hope...

http://www.iter.org/default.aspx

http://www.iter.org/newsline/Pages/79/Article.aspx?425

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOiGeFoIKek

I have my doubts if it will really work. But here's to hoping!

::Begins waiting for 2018:: Are we there yet?

[hitekredneck]

ya know...for somebody who made the statement that you didn't vote for the bammer, nor agree with most of his policy decisions, you sure are pushing his agenda... :confused:

[Tein]

ya know...for somebody who made the statement that you didn't vote for the bammer, nor agree with most of his policy decisions, you sure are pushing his agenda... :confused:

Hm.. I never said I voted for anyone. I haven't voted for anyone, and I don't plan on voting for anyone for as long as I'm alive. I see the flaws in everyone, including myself, that's why I say humanity is spiraling towards a doomed exsistance. Anyway... This isn't pushing his agenda. It's hoping there's more to life then fighting about coal. Have you thought of the applications and arenas this creation would bring to pass? Unlimited engery... No.. I know not to attempt any foreplay of anykind. Common sense dictates we need engery now until something permnant is found, but only after. So we need coal unfortunately. I've wrote my senator pleading to fight for coal, especially in my community. I have no wishes to see people suffer and communities vanish because someone wants "Clean coal". There just isn't such a thing. When the time comes however, there isn't any competition which is better if any sort of technology is found.

[yee-haw]

Hm.. I never said I voted for anyone. I haven't voted for anyone, and I don't plan on voting for anyone for as long as I'm alive. I see the flaws in everyone, including myself, that's why I say humanity is spiraling towards a doomed exsistance. Anyway... This isn't pushing his agenda. It's hoping there's more to life then fighting about coal. Have you thought of the applications and arenas this creation would bring to pass? Unlimited engery... No.. I know not to attempt any foreplay of anykind. Common sense dictates we need engery now until something permnant is found, but only after. So we need coal unfortunately. I've wrote my senator pleading to fight for coal, especially in my community. I have no wishes to see people suffer and communities vanish because someone wants "Clean coal". There just isn't such a thing. When the time comes however, there isn't any competition which is better if any sort of technology is found.

When you decide to vote and contribute, Come back and bitch then...
We'll listen and debate but if you're one of these hippies who sit around and bitch but yet do nothing, then you have nothing to say.

[MrJim]

When you decide to vote and contribute, Come back and bitch then...
We'll listen and debate but if you're one of these hippies who sit around and bitch but yet do nothing, then you have nothing to say.

I didn't vote (seriously) last time around, myself - didn't like either candidate - though I voted for Bush twice. And I guarantee you I will be there in November!

[AceTracer]

ya know...for somebody who made the statement that you didn't vote for the bammer, nor agree with most of his policy decisions, you sure are pushing his agenda... :confused:
I should be clear; I think Obama is too moderate. He's to the right of center, on the political spectrum, which is why I find it ironic that he's called a "socialist".

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

He's for capital punishment and against gay marriage; voted for FISA, the PATRIOT Act, and the bailout (which I was against); he was soft on health care, which gave us that horrible bill; he still hasn't closed Guantanamo; we're still in Iraq; gays still can't serve openly in the military; and now the offshore drilling.

It was FISA that finally brought me over the edge. If you're unaware it was the bill that provided immunity to telecommunication companies that gave away our records and tapped our phones. I think this is something libertarians should have a problem with as well.

I voted for Ralph Nader.

[AceTracer]

I didn't vote (seriously) last time around, myself - didn't like either candidate - though I voted for Bush twice. And I guarantee you I will be there in November!
And there were only two candidates on your ballot? I voted for the candidate that best agreed with my personal beliefs, and that wasn't McCain or Obama.

Did you not vote for president or did you note vote at all? You do realize there were other elections that year right? And referendums? Things that affected you much more than who the next president would be?

Honestly, I feel that anyone who doesn't vote rescinds their right to criticize government. I'll take any of your opinions with a grain of salt from now on.

[MrJim]

And there were only two candidates on your ballot? I voted for the candidate that best agreed with my personal beliefs, and that wasn't McCain or Obama.

Did you not vote for president or did you note vote at all? You do realize there were other elections that year right? And referendums? Things that affected you much more than who the next president would be?

'Write-in' for President, Libertarian/Republican for all other offices. McCain was not a real conservative, so I did not vote for him or his sideshow attraction Palin. In November, I will take things more seriously and vote straight party Republican. I'm a little more pissed than I thought I would be at the outcome, but mistakes happen.

[AceTracer]

In November, I will take things more seriously and vote straight party Republican. I'm a little more pissed than I thought I would be at the outcome, but mistakes happen.
So you're not one of these people that thinks we should "throw the bums out" and "fire congress" and elect term limits and all the rest? I'm assuming your congressional representatives are already Republicans, so you'll be voting to keep incumbents in office.

[MrJim]

So you're not one of these people that thinks we should "throw the bums out" and "fire congress" and elect term limits and all the rest? I'm assuming your congressional representatives are already Republicans, so you'll be voting to keep incumbents in office.

"Throw the bums out and fire congress?" Yes. They suck and I my taxes keep them in their cushy jobs.
"Elect term limits" No. There should be no term limits, as they kill the incentive for the president to perform well during a second term.

As for the incumbents, if they are indeed republicans, yes, they have my vote. We also have primaries on the state and local levels of government which my viewpoints differ per candidate (except for things like City Council members and Judges and crap that no one cares about).

[MrJim]

Honestly, I feel that anyone who doesn't vote rescinds their right to criticize government.

Everyone who pays taxes has the right to criticize who is control of where their tax money flows, but I digress. There are many who are active voters in some elections and not others, depending on their level of enthusiasm about one candidate or ther other.

[AceTracer]

As for the incumbents, if they are indeed republicans, yes, they have my vote. We also have primaries on the state and local levels of government which my viewpoints differ per candidate (except for things like City Council members and Judges and crap that no one cares about).
And yet it has the largest impact on your daily life. Most of the taxes you pay are enacted by state and local politicians.

It always confuses me how much more attention federal elections get than local ones, when the outcomes are pretty much a given and the consequences are mostly inconsequential. And yet, despite the rallying cry of conservatives for states rights and local government over federal government, local government doesn't get very much attention or support.

If you don't vote, you're doing nothing useful to change the things you hate about government, and have no one to blame but yourself.

[Montanarchist]

If you don't vote, you're doing nothing useful to change the things you hate about government, and have no one to blame but yourself.The one and only thing I hate about the govt. is that it is compulsory, and there hasn't been a single candidate in the history of this country that shared this view. Why should I ever bother voting then, when there really won't be any chance of change coming on?

[MrJim]

And yet it has the largest impact on your daily life. Most of the taxes you pay are enacted by state and local politicians.

It always confuses me how much more attention federal elections get than local ones, when the outcomes are pretty much a given and the consequences are mostly inconsequential. And yet, despite the rallying cry of conservatives for states rights and local government over federal government, local government doesn't get very much attention or support.

If you don't vote, you're doing nothing useful to change the things you hate about government, and have no one to blame but yourself.

'No one to blame but yourself'... hmm, I've heard that before, except it was when I *did* vote: for a Republican. Do the ones who voted for someone I dislike deserve my blame? That goes both ways. A vote, as I see it, shows dedication to one candidate, and if there is no dedication, voting is insincere and pointless, especially if one can accurately predict the outcome.

[yee-haw]

I didn't vote (seriously) last time around, myself - didn't like either candidate - though I voted for Bush twice. And I guarantee you I will be there in November!

Well, I'm glad you're going in november...
and everyone does make mistakes when it comes to voting for the lesser evil at times.

[MrJim]

Well, I'm glad you're going in november...
and everyone does make mistakes when it comes to voting for the lesser evil at times.

Bill Clinton was interviewed on a PBS show this morning and feels confident that the democrats will retain their majority. I don't see it myself, but I have to at least do my part to try and stop it.

[T3XASOUTLAW]

What i find funny, is all the bickering between the two parties.
Bush II over saw the biggest growth in federal spending, then came Obama (Bush III to all you progressives out there.)
From a classical Liberal point of view, both parties are exactly the same.
I could post a chart, but who really cares, the numbers can be based on so many facts, and fallacies alike. The fact of the matter is, no matter who the president is, or his/her party affiliation, the debt has increased. Either by money printed, or by money borrowed.
Clinton had a "surplus" in the fiscal year of 1998-2000,

Lets look at the national treasury, and not some graph

Debt Deficit
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

The debt is a continuing thing, and as long as the federal reserve exists, it will be impossible to pay off.
You people are arguing over, who added the last straw to the camels back.
All that exists is the single party system trying to gain a political advantage over who crashed the dollar.

[Limbo]

From a classical Liberal point of view, both parties are exactly the same.


Nope. I'm afraid not.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.gif

[Carrot]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png/800px-Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg/800px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

Historically, the rate of increase etc is equal to that of the end of bush2's term.

However, all predictions simulations seem to agree that if current spending continues AND if the economy grows at the same rate.


Entitlement spending (primarily Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) is growing considerably faster than the economy as the population ages. Under current law, there will be enormous deficits and related interest payments, resulting in the debt to GDP ratio increasing well-beyond its WW2 high. The historical trend in debt % to GDP is not predictive of the future because of the fundamental aging of the population and explosive rate of growth in entitlements, primarily Medicare & Medicaid.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c6/Debt_to_GDP_Forecast_Chart.png/800px-Debt_to_GDP_Forecast_Chart.png

Is there information on where all the bailout money went exactly?

Anyway, what I still don't understand is the federal reserve. I don't get it.

[beelzebub]

[IMG] However, all predictions simulations seem to agree that if current spending continues AND if the economy grows at the same rate.
Is there information on where all the bailout money went exactly?
Anyway, what I still don't understand is the federal reserve. I don't get it.

You always find the BEST graphs and charts, I swear! I really appreciate this post!

Thanks!

[Carrot]

Lol, they're all on the first wiki page you come to. I was surprised no one posted them.

I guess everyone was so caught up in the exact scenario they wanted to get across they skipped them.

[LedZap]

Blub has trouble using search engines.

[Carrot]

It looks like nearly everyone does.

[Limbo]

It's not just googling and finding some interesting looking chart that is important, you also have to be able to interpret what it means.

That graph carrot posted is a relative graph, debt as a percentage of GDP. There was a steep recession at the end of Bush's term and the GDP was shrinking rapidly, making the line go up more sharply than if the economy was growing. That makes the chart somewhat misleading.

The chart I posted was debt not relative to anything else, just debt in absolute terms. If you can't see the difference between Obama and Bush, than you gotta be blind.

[Carrot]

I know it's a relative graph. I think relative graphs are a far more suitable method of representing this sort of data. Absolute terms are a fairly crude measure for comparison especially in terms of economic changes, and most fields with regards to multiple factors over time. The impact of the debt changes with regards to the GDP, and I think it's absurd to think that it somehow works against bush. A weakening economy will cause the line to increase, an improving aconomy will cause it to decrease, so the impact of the debt is illustrated fairly.

A graph of absolute debt over time not taking into account the strength of the economy would tell you very little about anything.

Besides, what exactly is your chart supposed to be predicting?

This is what I found for the end of 2009:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Date --------- Debt Held by the Public ------------- Intragovernmental Holdings -------------- Total Public Debt Outstanding
12/31/2009--------- 7,811,008,785,487.30 --------------- 4,500,340,892,024.73 ---------------- 12,311,349,677,512.03

[Patt]

Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36062775/ns/business-washington_post/)
Text: We're sorry. The text content of this page is no longer available.

[Limbo]

Besides, what exactly is your chart supposed to be predicting?


It shows budget deficit/surplus. It shows actual for past years and projected for future years based on budgeting.

[Patt]

It's not just googling and finding some interesting looking chart that is important, you also have to be able to interpret what it means.

That graph carrot posted is a relative graph, debt as a percentage of GDP. There was a steep recession at the end of Bush's term and the GDP was shrinking rapidly, making the line go up more sharply than if the economy was growing. That makes the chart somewhat misleading.

The chart I posted was debt not relative to anything else, just debt in absolute terms. If you can't see the difference between Obama and Bush, than you gotta be blind.

Additionally, the off book items aren't included. As I recall, we are at 90% Gross Debt right now.

The number that is important is "GROSS DEBT" - not a percentage or, or any other 'relative' number.


Gross debt is at 89 percent (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/99973-us-debt-reaches-level-at-which-economic-growth-begins-to-slow-) and will reach 90 percent by the end of the year, said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a member of the commission. 05/26/10

[Carrot]

It shows budget deficit/surplus. It shows actual for past years and projected for future years based on budgeting.

I think these are the right numbers:

This is what I found for the end of 2009:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Date --------- Debt Held by the Public ---------- Intragovernmental Holdings -------- Total Public Debt Outstanding
12/31/2009---- 7,811,008,785,487.30 ------- 4,500,340,892,024.73 ---------------- 12,311,349,677,512.03

They don't seem to be anywhere near what that was predicting....am I wrong?

[Carrot]

Additionally, the off book items aren't included. As I recall, we are at 90% Gross Debt right now.

The number that is important is "GROSS DEBT" -not a percentage or, or any other 'relative' number.

I don't understand.

[Patt]

I don't understand.

Alarming Gross Debt Sparks Fiscal Commission Debate (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2010/05/27/Alarming-Gross-Debt-Sparks-Fiscal-Commission-Debate.aspx)

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, argued that the focus should be on “gross’’ federal debt, which includes debt held by the public as well as debt the government owes to itself – most of which is owed to the Social Security trust fund. By that measure, federal debt already totals $13 trillion, or almost 90 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.

May 27, 2010

[Carrot]

Alarming Gross Debt Sparks Fiscal Commission Debate (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2010/05/27/Alarming-Gross-Debt-Sparks-Fiscal-Commission-Debate.aspx)

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, argued that the focus should be on “gross’’ federal debt, which includes debt held by the public as well as debt the government owes to itself – most of which is owed to the Social Security trust fund. By that measure, federal debt already totals $13 trillion, or almost 90 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.

May 27, 2010

You threw me by simultaneously saying that percentages shouldn't be used, then using one (as a percentage of GDP too).

[beelzebub]

You are supposed to be a neutral.

If not expect MANY MANY of my freakations of your name.

I guess this is no longer flaming as the MODS are doing it too..[/QUOTE]

[Carrot]

Not now bub.

[LedZap]

I don't understand ho1ANY of my freakations of your name.




Me either ........

[beelzebub]

Me either ........

I applaude your deletion of the post. Led,.. come on! I am NOT your enemy.

We really are, partially, on the same team ( I hope).

I am interested in debate and discussion. I know that many of my ideals are opposite to your own but I beg you stop standing in front of me, preventing my voice to be heard.

Please.

[LedZap]

I applaude your deletion of the post. Led,.. come on! I am NOT your enemy.

We really are, partially, on the same team ( I hope).

I am interested in debate and discussion. I know that many of my ideals are opposite to your own but I beg you stop standing in front of me, preventing my voice to be heard.

Please.

I deleted nothing Bub. The post edit file show you edited your post..."Last edited by beelzebub; Today at 08:34 PM."....Don't try playing games with me pal.

[beelzebub]

I deleted nothing Bub. The post edit file show you edited your post..."Last edited by beelzebub; Today at 08:34 PM."....Don't try playing games with me pal.

I tried to respond to a post that was FAR more agressive but, lacking mert, I see why you deleted it before I could respopnd.

Anyway... I was happy that I THOUGHT you changed your post,.. now it has turned into a "prove what and when" thing.

Now I think you are just out to get me.

[LedZap]

I tried to respond to a post that was FAR more agressive but, lacking mert, I see why you deleted it before I could respopnd.

Anyway... I was happy that I THOUGHT you changed your post,.. now it has turned into a "prove what and when" thing.

Now I think you are just out to get me.

"lacking mert" ...who's Mert ? .........anyway , no bub , I've not deleted any of your posts. Or my own for that matter.

[beelzebub]

I've not deleted any of your posts. Or my own for that matter.

I trust you... I know you are not posting for no reason However, I saw a different post and tried to respond. Error messages appeard and I responded to a "new" post.

Perhaps you were in the midst of editing,.. the same happens to me no worries.

[bullfighter]

Why don't you find out where the trillions was spent why. Where the money was lost. And who owns the auto companys that was bailed out. I mean who owns the cooperation that own the companies And who payed for the war who lost mojor money from the war. And who payed the loss You are so fleeced. So brainwashed so fucking inslaved. Men in power killed millions so they could have a controled slavery cid:FC159845-4A65-4F61-A275-1591A2773FC7/Jan%25202011%2520Joanne%2520272.jpgE=MrJim;115115]Wow, $8 Billion ... slow down, Washington, you don't want to make back $13 Trillion too fast now! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

[beelzebub]

Your chart stops before Obama's presidency begins.

Mr Jim,.. I object! You chart is what that conservative group THINKS may happen 10 years in the future.

Thats not factual.

Other than that,... nice work all yall. Good debate.

[bullfighter]

around and around we go..hay there when they asked the red head what is ferther away the moon or LA ..WHAT DID SHE SAY....