Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.
The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.
Great news for the liberals, eh? And this is the CBO, not a blog, not right wing, not left wing. Is this really what you voted for? $1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget - broken link)
Deficits don't matter as long as 1) there is real GDP growth that reduces the government's debt burden through increased tax revenues and 2) there is a large supply of investors with savings to invest in Treasuries.
Deficits don't matter as long as 1) there is real GDP growth that reduces the government's debt burden through increased tax revenues and 2) there is a large supply of investors with savings to invest in Treasuries.
Yeah, but these defitics are calculated AFTER taking all that into account.
Great news for the liberals, eh? And this is the CBO, not a blog, not right wing, not left wing. Is this really what you voted for? $1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget - broken link)
Nothing to worry about! Soon Jesus will return and everything will be fine and wonderful!
Deficits don't matter as long as 1) there is real GDP growth that reduces the government's debt burden through increased tax revenues and 2) there is a large supply of investors with savings to invest in Treasuries.
Then wahy was anyone woried about spending in iraq. We certainly were in alot better tiems then than now.That;s the same as people telling others that it does not matter waht you spend on a house or if you can affors it when the rates go up because the value will increrase. Didn't happen . Anymore Pie in the stky ideas. Wait util thsoe programs satrt getting cuts and inflation goes upo at a time when governamnt consumes more wealth . When they do its not tehre for individuals to spend. Less spending by vonsumer means less GDP just like now.
Deficits don't matter as long as 1) there is real GDP growth that reduces the government's debt burden through increased tax revenues and 2) there is a large supply of investors with savings to invest in Treasuries.
GDP is based principally on consumption so #1 won't be happening.
#2 is already not happening just by the mere fact that the Fed is the only buyer of $300B worth of Treasuries. Bonds went up on the news simply because there'll be a short term "bond flipping" bonanza where investors will get in simply because they know they can dump it back on the Fed when ready to sell. As the printing actually goes into effect, the Fed will have to buy more and more Treasuries as the ultimate Ponzi scheme unfolds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
