"Things You Wouldn't Know If We Didn't Blog Intermittently."
In the interest of fairness that is the year-by-year shortfall in revenues vs. expenses. No matter how small that number gets so long as it remains positive it is adding to the national debt.
That's a good point.
He said it would be tough to fix the problems we made. I think many of us are disappointed by his methods so far, to say the least...It is a very impressive jump from 2008 to 2009 at nearly a Trillion dollar increase. How did we let that happen again? Everyone blames el Prez, but it's Congress that signs off on these things. And at the end of it all we can blame ourselves for continuing to vote these people into power.
Bush took a surplus to $1.2 Trillion.Fact Check.org: Obama “inherited the biggest deficit in our history,” The Congressional Budget Office had already estimated that increased spending and decreased revenues would result in a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009, which began Oct. 1, 2008."The stimulus, which worked, pushed it to "$1.4 trillion that year."$1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and about $1.2 trillion" for 2012. Projected to be under $1 trillion in 2013.Bush: "I proposed a plan, detailed budget that shows us cutting the deficit in half by five years. And you’re right, I haven’t vetoed any spending bills ..." 10/08/2004The FY 2009 budget Bush proposed called for a deficit of roughly $400 billion, almost identical to the result in 2004.Politifact: 2009-2014 "In summary, Obama is correct when he says the CBO predicts that under Obama's budget plan, the deficit would be cut in half in five year. ...So we rule his statement Mostly True."
We wouldn't be talking huge deficits if it were not for wars on two fronts, for which there was no effort or intention to make provisions to pay for. That's a clumsy sentence, but I think you get what I mean. At the same time, financial institutions were allowed to run wild and fabricate every kind of irresponsible scams. And executives were inflating their salaries while cutting workers, cutting payrolls, etc.It impresses me deeply that we have managed to stay out of a devastatingly profound Depression.
Yes,nollanda, it should over the long term be net zero: deficit in tough times, surplus in good. At least to manage the overall debt to a reasonable % of GDP (though of course there's a huge fight among all parties to determine what the heck is "reasonable")
I think 'net zero' is more likely to never happen. As in the past gold coverage was kicked off, not because it was irrational (it was pretty materialist, in fact), but because deficit made it impossible to sustain it, the "need" to mantain a thriving economy through "stimulae" (hand-outs) will make a reversion of the debt impractible under the current system. The method of hiking this debt is more likely to change to some annual amount of new debt decided by Congress, so that we end up loosing the sum of the total debt and naturalize the idea that the american government can violate the laws of economy and take credit unhingedly.
Two things important to add here;1) PROJECTION is not the same as REALITY.2) It is easy to reduce deficit... RAISE TAXES. That is exactly what the lefties did.