There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.
The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.
[blockquote]The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits…[/blockquote]
So far. Carry out the rest of his collectivist agenda and the debt will more than double in just eight years.
Then explain how his debt projections are more than all the presidents from Washington to Bush 43 COMBINED?
Dear Jim,
The same thing was said about “W”. He ran up debt larger than that of all presidents before him COMBINED. The interesting thing is that this can probably be said of half the presidents in the past 100 years. I say probably because I have not done the research. However, I have been around since Roosevelt, and I am pretty sure he and Truman did. I expect Reagen did too, as well as Carter and others. Eisenhower was an exception.
How do they get away with it? Eventually inflation. Maybe not in this era of shrinkage but later on. When Franklin went to Philadelphia he ordered 2 cents worth of bread and was surprised to get three loaves. Today we buy three loaves of bread and are surprised to pay $ 9.57. A 479-fold increase seems incredible. However, we have managed to accommodate it over the 250-year period. True, it has been more difficult during certain eras such as the depression, but we have gotten to this point despite massive inflation.
Another aspect of public debt must also be considered. That is how does the debt compare with the assets. It is hard to know the sum of the assets of the US. The amount of public lands and mineral resources are staggering and the degree to which we are blessed with natural and people resources is also staggering.
Maybe the whole mess we are in is a bit like a millionaire taking a $30,000 loan to buy a car because he wishes to not sell off any assets. Sure, as the five-year term goes by he is going to wind up paying $35,000 including interest. Big deal. (Not really to a millionaire).
I am angry with the mess our financial (and regulator) types have dumped on our heads. Now we have to buy our way out of the problems they have given us. Such cleaning up processes are rarely efficient and never pretty, but what are the alternatives? Any one of us bloggers could do a better job of running the world’s largest economic complex, but that is not going to happen. We are just going to have to pay a little extra for the inept muddling around of the incompetents who are currently in charge and pray that we get slightly less inept bunglers the next time we vote. I guess the Brits call it “muddling through”. Best wishes as we muddle, — Stan
[blockquote]The same thing was said about “Wâ€. He ran up debt larger than that of all presidents before him COMBINED. [/blockquote]
I’m not defending Bush’s big-spending ways, mind you, but I think that statement isn’t accurate. As can be ballparked from [url=http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/79682/]this graphic[/url], Bush ran up about $2 trillion on the national credit card. Our gross public debt was about $7 trillion when Bush took over, so he “only” increased it by about 30%. Obama promises to double it in his eight years, and that’s before doing for US healthcare what Uncle Joe did for Ukrainian agriculture.
Dear Jeffersonian,
I’m not defending Obama, either, and certainly did not vote for him. But, please let me show why my statement is accurate. I should have looked some of these numbers up earlier. Here they are now.
These numbers are from the U.S. Treasury Department, who captures the size of the public debt, to the penny, at the close of each fiscal year.
Here are the figures for the approximate period of “W’s” term:
09-30-2008 $ 10,024,724,896,912.49
09-30-2000 $ 5,674,178209,886.86
Now, President Bush took office and left office about 4 months after each of these reference point dates. Based on the rates of debt increase at each of the key dates, I have projected the debt was $5.75 trillion when he took office and $11.5 trillion when he left office. That would mean the debt increased $5.75 trillion while he was in office — an amount equal to that borrowed under all previous presidents. That Obama will far surpass this feat does not seem to be an open question.
One of my points was that other presidents did even worse. In eight years Reagan stacked about $1.7 trillion on top of about $1.0 trillion, to a new total of $2.7 trillion. There is no question he borrowed more than all the previous presidents combined. The same is true for the four-year combined term of Roosevelt-Truman. They stacked about $200 billion on top of about $50 billion by borrowing in four years 400% what all the presidents before them had borrowed.
The excuse is always, “We are living in extraodinary times”. But when have they not been extraordinary? Vietnam cost far more than WWII and Korea combined and now our Middle East adventure makes them all look like piggy-bank wars. The economic melt-down? Probably larger still. Our debt is probably too large, but what would our country be worth if we could assess it? $100 trillion? $500 trillion? I don’t know the answer, but I do believe it is worth a great deal more than what we haver borrowed or will need to borrow.
I hope this clarification will be helpful, — Stan
Sorry, I left a comma out of the figure for 2000. It should read:
09-30-2000 $ 5,674,178,209,886.86 . The digits were all correct. I have never had to deal with that much money before!
The historical table of outstanding US debt at the end of each fiscal year from 1791 — 2008 is tabulated by the Treasury Department at:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
The bitter truth is that you can’t be elected or remain elected unless you give voters money.
“Then explain how his debt projections are more than all the presidents from Washington to Bush 43 COMBINED? ”
That’s easy. They aren’t. That is just right wing propaganda.
When you say “his debt projections” you are talking about the projected debt the country will incur during the Obama Administration. However, that debt will largely result from legislation, tax policies, and debts from prior to his election. The vast majority of the debt we will run up over the next four years will be the result of Social Security, Medicare, Medicare Drug Coverage, the Cost of the Iraq War and Afghanistan, the cost of maintaining the Military, and the interest due on all of the debt run up prior to Obama’s election. Obama has virtually no control over any of that. As the article pointed out, his legislative agenda adds marginally to the projected debt, but the projected debt would only go down by a relatively small fraction if Obama did absolutely nothing at all. Unless of course you are proposing he immediately end Social Security, end Medicare, end Medicaid, fire the Military and sell their equipment to the highest bidder, pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, shut down the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service, end road construction, end bridge construction, stop all foreign aid programs, and stop making interest payments to our creditors.
It is true that the increased debt, so far, is primarily from existing programs. It’s the projected liability and spending increases and the proposed tax increases which are making the international markets leery of our future ability to repay. While most of the “stimulus” money has not yet been spent, that will ramp up soon, and that debt increase will clearly be a Democratic legacy.