Dear Toppy: GDP growth -0.1%

Dungheap said:
What will happen when "it" explodes?

Also, we aren't ammassing $600+ in deficit spending for every year for the foreseeable future. In fact, the deficit is shrinking at the fastest pace since WWII, and that's before the recent revenue increases:

http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...eficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm
Click to expand...

yes, we are...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

or if you prefer...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

table 1.1 on the above link

So yes, we are indeed seeing $600B deficits for the foreseeable future, according to the tax policy center and the white house.

As for the pace of deficit shrinking... wow... some standard you set there. 'Hey, if we over spend by $100 T this year and then over spend by $50T next year, we could claim that it was the most awesomess job of deficit reduction ever. We rock!'
 
Superfreak said:
yes, we are...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

or if you prefer...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

table 1.1 on the above link

So yes, we are indeed seeing $600B deficits for the foreseeable future, according to the tax policy center and the white house.
Click to expand...

The OMB is actually the source for the Tax Policy Center link so you don't have two sources here, you have one. It should be noted that these projections were prior to the fiscall cliff deal and, I believe, are based on the President's proposed budget, which I need not remind you was not implemented. So, I'm not sure that these projections have any value. All that aside, it depneds on how you measure the deficit. Table 1 showing the $600+ billion deficits is in straight dollars where as Table 1.3 (what the Tax Policy Center uses) is in constant 2005 dollars and shows deficits of less than $600 billion.

The CBO is scheduled to put out a report incorporating the effects of the fiscal cliff deal in early February that will have useful numbers.


Superfreak said:
As for the pace of deficit shrinking... wow... some standard you set there. 'Hey, if we over spend by $100 T this year and then over spend by $50T next year, we could claim that it was the most awesomess job of deficit reduction ever. We rock!'
Click to expand...

Well, you're bitching about high deficits into perpetuity when the reality is that the deficit it expected to shrink quite dramatically in the near term.
 
Dungheap said:
The OMB is actually the source for the Tax Policy Center link so you don't have two sources here, you have one. It should be noted that these projections were prior to the fiscall cliff deal and, I believe, are based on the President's proposed budget, which I need not remind you was not implemented. So, I'm not sure that these projections have any value. All that aside, it depneds on how you measure the deficit. Table 1 showing the $600+ billion deficits is in straight dollars where as Table 1.3 (what the Tax Policy Center uses) is in constant 2005 dollars and shows deficits of less than $600 billion.
Click to expand...

LOL... well by all means, lets take your word for it over what we do have available. Dung says 'nuh huh'... which obviously trumps what the WH currently has available.

The CBO is scheduled to put out a report incorporating the effects of the fiscal cliff deal in early February that will have useful numbers.
Click to expand...

except that it wont be useful because the idiots in DC once again kicked the can down the road on the debt problem/sequestration/debt ceiling etc...

So I guess we can just do as you do and ignore that as well.

Well, you're bitching about high deficits into perpetuity when the reality is that the deficit it expected to shrink quite dramatically in the near term.
Click to expand...

Yes, because unlike you I realize that when you have insanely high deficits, it is relatively easy to cut them in half and still have insanely high deficits. Percentages of cuts to deficits are pretty irrelevant. It is the total dollars added to the nations debt burden that matters.

What is better for the financial well being of this country Dung:

1) You have a deficit of $250B and cut it to $200B (25% cut)
2) You have a deficit of $1.4T and cut it to $600B (57% cut)

Number two has the larger percentage cut, but it is also the most detrimental to this country and is the more fiscally irresponsible.
 
Superfreak said:
LOL... well by all means, lets take your word for it over what we do have available. Dung says 'nuh huh'... which obviously trumps what the WH currently has available.
Click to expand...

Those projections are based on the President's budget: "Historical Tables provides a wide range of data on Federal Government finances. Many of the data series begin in 1940 and include estimates of the President’s Budget for 2012–2017." I'm not saying nuh huh, I'm saying that those projections are accurate projections if the President's budget were implemented. But it wasn't. So they have limited value.


Superfreak said:
except that it wont be useful because the idiots in DC once again kicked the can down the road on the debt problem/sequestration/debt ceiling etc...
Click to expand...

OK, well do you have a suggestion for a source for deficit projections? The White House projections are no good. If the CBO projections are no good, just what is your source for the $600+ billion deficits for the foreseeable future?


Superfreak said:
So I guess we can just do as you do and ignore that as well.
Click to expand...

What?


Superfreak said:
Yes, because unlike you I realize that when you have insanely high deficits, it is relatively easy to cut them in half and still have insanely high deficits. Percentages of cuts to deficits are pretty irrelevant. It is the total dollars added to the nations debt burden that matters.

What is better for the financial well being of this country Dung:

1) You have a deficit of $250B and cut it to $200B (25% cut)
2) You have a deficit of $1.4T and cut it to $600B (57% cut)

Number two has the larger percentage cut, but it is also the most detrimental to this country and is the more fiscally irresponsible.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but you're still ignoring the fact that the deficit has been cut significantly and is expected to shrink substantially in the very near term. That's the reality.
 
Dungheap said:
That's all well and good, but you're still ignoring the fact that the deficit has been cut significantly and is expected to shrink substantially in the very near term. That's the reality.
Click to expand...

Roflmao...

Again...


What is better for the financial well being of this country Dung:

1) You have a deficit of $250B and cut it to $200B (25% cut)
2) You have a deficit of $1.4T and cut it to $600B (57% cut)

Number two has the larger percentage cut, but it is also the most detrimental to this country and is the more fiscally irresponsible.

Percentage cuts to deficit spending are largely irrelevant Dung. What matters is the total dollar figure of the deficit.
 
Superfreak said:
Roflmao...

Again...


What is better for the financial well being of this country Dung:

1) You have a deficit of $250B and cut it to $200B (25% cut)
2) You have a deficit of $1.4T and cut it to $600B (57% cut)

Number two has the larger percentage cut, but it is also the most detrimental to this country and is the more fiscally irresponsible.

Percentage cuts to deficit spending are largely irrelevant Dung. What matters is the total dollar figure of the deficit.
Click to expand...


What in the world do these examples have to do with your claim that deficits are expected to remain above $600 billion for the foreseeable future? The deficit is going down and is expected to continue to go down in the near term.

Also, too, what matters is not the total dollar figure, but the amount of the deficit relative to GDP. A $200 billion deficit is a bigger deal if GDP is $3.4T than it is if GDP is $7 T.
 
Dungheap said:
What in the world do these examples have to do with your claim that deficits are expected to remain above $600 billion for the foreseeable future? The deficit is going down and is expected to continue to go down in the near term.

Also, too, what matters is not the total dollar figure, but the amount of the deficit relative to GDP. A $200 billion deficit is a bigger deal if GDP is $3.4T than it is if GDP is $7 T.
Click to expand...

They don't. They have to do with your stupid line of 'deficits be shrinking by largest percentages since Adam and Evil'

As for your percent of GDP yes, that is correct... so has our GDP tripled in the last 5 years?
 
Dungheap said:
No one is talking about trillion dollar deficits to keep on. In fact, with the recent revenue deal trillion dollar deficits are already a things of the past, unless, of course, we follow your advice and go into another recession.

That's the weird thing about what you would like to do. In the end, we'll have a recession and come out of it with substantially more debt than we save with spending cuts. It's foolish.
Click to expand...

He is just being emotional, standing on the bodies of future generations. ;)
 
Dungheap said:
In the 4th quarter of 2012. You know, when the economy shrank.
Click to expand...

They spent less because of the sequestration. It is temporary. The "economy shrank" but all other signs are positive. It only shows how these stats are often misleading in isolation.
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...edly-shrinks-as-defense-spending-plunges.html

Now it isn't as bad as it looks, but it does show you that we are not growing at the 3% you like to hype.
Click to expand...
Who cares? We got women in combat, gays in combat(legally), the immigration gates are about to be thrown open(obama even wants gay immigrants to be able to bring in their "partners" as some kind of "spouse" under the law).We're about to have "universal", cradle to grave health care:awesome: We got all this cool stuff! Who needs a stinking "economy"?
 
Dungheap said:
What? I'm not sure I follow. Government spending shrank and lowered GDP. What's misleading?
Click to expand...

GDP is misleading in and of itself. That this is some ominous sign is misleading. Defense spending does almost nothing to improve our quality of life or increase utility. Of course, it has some value but at the levels we are spending, it is a drain. The other factor was due to a reduction in inventories. There was no real loss of value or a decline in productive economic activity.
 
Banned said:
And the market is just a handful of points away from setting a new all time record high...
Click to expand...


The market is going up.....

Is your heathcare any cheaper
Is your heating oil bill lower
Is gas cheaper
Is your grocery bill going down
Is your home value rising
Are you taxes lower
Is unemployment a thing of the past

Of well, the market is up....
 
SuperstringTheory said:
GDP is misleading in and of itself. That this is some ominous sign is misleading. Defense spending does almost nothing to improve our quality of life or increase utility. Of course, it has some value but at the levels we are spending, it is a drain. The other factor was due to a reduction in inventories. There was no real loss of value or a decline in productive economic activity.
Click to expand...


Hey, I'd love to take defense spending and put it to a socially beneficial purpose, but that doesn't seem to be an avilable option. It's either defense spending or no spending and, in my view, at this particular point in time, defense spending is the better of the two.
 
Dungheap said:
Hey, I'd love to take defense spending and put it to a socially beneficial purpose, but that doesn't seem to be an avilable option. It's either defense spending or no spending and, in my view, at this particular point in time, defense spending is the better of the two.
Click to expand...

yet federal spending was actually up, despite the drop in defense spending... yet you claim it is 'austerity'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top