CBO debt projections: 82% of GDP by 2019

[Winehole23]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml


CBO has also analyzed the policy proposals outlined in the President’s preliminary budget request.2 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml#72) Under those policies, the deficit would total $1.8 trillion (13.1 percent of GDP) in 2009 and $1.4 trillion (9.6 percent of GDP) in 2010. The cumulative deficit over the 2010–2019 projection period would equal $9.3 trillion and would average 5.3 percent of GDP. Debt held by the public would rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent of GDP in 2019.

[boutons_deux]

private gain, public risk.

Ain't unregulated capitalism a helluva joyride?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

private gain, public risk.

Ain't unregulated capitalism a helluva joyride?

Hey dumbass. What Obama's doing isn't capitalism.

[Winehole23]

Hey dumbass. What Obama's doing isn't capitalism.You have to admit, his predecessor softened us up for it some.

[boutons_deux]

McLiar and his pitbull bitch would have done exactly the same, carried on what the REPUGS and Goldman Paulsen started.

So, Aggie Poops Fan, you prefer AIG, Citi, BoA, and dozens of others all to go bankrupt and probably into liquidation?

I'm not for what's being done, but what's the alternative? The financial sector, unregulated and unpoliced, esp by the Repugs executing "no govt" conservatism, grabbed the US by the balls and won't let go.

[sabar]

All politicians want the government to take more control of the private sector, everyone needs to stop pretending that their party wont but the other party will. Fact is, the government is responsible for regulating free market to the point that things like this don't happen. Unfortunately monopolies and oligopolies invest heavily in special interest groups that lobby these concerns away. When things finally hit an unacceptable level, government over-reacts and starts to take control of private industry.

Just another example of how inefficient government is at doing anything. The entire housing crisis should never have been allowed to occur. Of course, instead of passing a little regulation concerning lending money to people that have no job/house/income, they wait for it to all blow up.

The government has no foresight. The auto industry is a great example. Instead of trying to get things in line between unions and corporations, the government (state/national/local/whatever) decided it would be better to pass a ton of emissions standards, even in the face of being unable to compete with foreign cars. Raising the cost to produce a car isn't how to remain competitive or keep your industry viable.

This will all reach a critical mass sooner or later. There will be a point where we fall behind other nations that don't choke their own industries under silly taxes/standards/loans/takeovers. Perhaps it is just the end of our manufacturing era and another sign that the U.S. can only compete when it comes to the service and electronics industries.

[EVAY]

Hey dumbass. What Obama's doing isn't capitalism.

No, it is not capitalism. It is also not socialism. When I watched the U.S. Congress vote to approve the trillionsin TARP money last year at the request of the Republican President and the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, I knew that we were watching an historic event:, i.e. the end of capitalism as it had been practiced in America for quite for some time. At that point, it was clear the America was moving, indeed had to move to a more European form of Capitalism, where governmnets are far more involved in the commerce of their countries than has been the case in America until last fall.

Perhaps in a global economy there is little or no choice. I'm not sure. What I am sure about is that too little effective regulation from somesource resulted in global financial meltdown, and that financial meltdown would only have been worse if what was done with TARP and and with the bailouts hadn't happened. So, I'm not ready to trash Obama's plans just yet.

The Capitalists on Wall Street brought this on themselves. Government is a reactive institution. It is only able to act after some excess or crisis. This crisis, laid at the feet of Capitalism, is going to result in things changing. Obama may get it right or he may get it wrong, but I absolutely guarantee you that continuing the policies of hands-off regulation of financial sectors, coupled with the one-item financial policy of more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would not , repeat NOT do anything but dig our fiscal hole larger.

I am probably more terrified of the size of the deficits than any poster on this board, but I also realize that, in the short run, there is no option but to have larger deficits. The question is Where will the political leadership come from that will get us out of them? The Republican party has no fiscal credibility. The time to show your fiscal responsibility is when you are in power. They have taken 7 of the last 11 Presidential elections, and had control of congress for 14 of the last 16 years, and the deficits continued to rise and rise and rise. They did nothing but make it worse.

So Obama's policies are clearly increasing the deficits. What republican is going to stand up with Warren Buffett and say "Yes, we have to increase taxes on those who are able to pay them, because our grandchildren can't be asked to pay for our cowardice?" Which Republican congressman or Senator from an agricultural state is going to suggest removal of the farm subsidies? Which Republican is going to stand up to the defense industry in their state and say, "we can't afford that fighter jet and we don't need it"?

The Republicans had their chances. They have nothing to offer now but handwringing and criticisms, hoping that the Dems screw up enough ( which, God knows they are capable of doing) to let them back into power. What then, a Stimulus package of more tax cuts? That's how the deficits grew under the Republicans.

[angrydude]

McLiar and his pitbull bitch would have done exactly the same, carried on what the REPUGS and Goldman Paulsen started.

So, Aggie Poops Fan, you prefer AIG, Citi, BoA, and dozens of others all to go bankrupt and probably into liquidation?

I'm not for what's being done, but what's the alternative? The financial sector, unregulated and unpoliced, esp by the Repugs executing "no govt" conservatism, grabbed the US by the balls and won't let go.


Because there was never a tech bubble and bust during the 90's.

There is an alternative. Take the bitter medicine now instead of 6 years from now when it'll taste worse.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Because there was never a tech bubble and bust during the 90's.

There is an alternative. Take the bitter medicine now instead of 6 years from now when it'll taste worse.

ding ding ding, we have a winner. Poor boutons, apparently the only economics class he got taught in home school was that Karl Marx had it right.

[Winehole23]

There is an alternative. Take the bitter medicine now instead of 6 years from now when it'll taste worse.I tend to agree, angrydude. Deflation however painful or chaotic might be preferable to hyperinflation or national default IMO.

Unfortunately, it will never be tried again. We just now seem to be emerging from the tailspin caused by Paulson's decision to allow Lehman to fail. We'll kick the can and pray for a miraculous save, all the while hoping just to muddle through. A lot of deleveraging is left to be done. Deflation would do it quicker, but the pain of doing so suddenly and catatrophically might not be politically survivable.

[Winehole23]

I am probably more terrified of the size of the deficits than any poster on this board, but I also realize that, in the short run, there is no option but to have larger deficits. The question is Where will the political leadership come from that will get us out of them?I hope to see it before I die, but *pay more get less* isn't a very good campaign slogan.

I have been considering starting a drinking club in Austin based on Whig and Free Soil Party themes. That is as far as my own hopes for political change go.

I have one drinking buddy so far. I am the Whig. He is the Free Soiler. We drink a lot of beer and size up the hipster WOTM's at the Moose.


The Republican party has no fiscal credibility. The time to show your fiscal responsibility is when you are in power. They have taken 7 of the last 11 Presidential elections, and had control of congress for 14 of the last 16 years, and the deficits continued to rise and rise and rise. They did nothing but make it worse.Hard to argue with.


So Obama's policies are clearly increasing the deficits. What republican is going to stand up with Warren Buffett and say "Yes, we have to increase taxes on those who are able to pay them, because our grandchildren can't be asked to pay for our cowardice?"

Which Republican congressman or Senator from an agricultural state is going to suggest removal of the farm subsidies?

Which Republican is going to stand up to the defense industry in their state and say, "we can't afford that fighter jet and we don't need it"?In the spirit of evenhandedness the very same questions ought to be posed to the reigning Dems, but I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Where's Obama's goddam plan for this?

[SonOfAGun]

Raise taxes? How about they quit raising the spending first. They don't deserve shit.

I get it. Get rich off the destruction of the country. Put the country in a position where there is no other option but to raise taxes. Get rich off of further destruction of the country while raising taxes. No accountability, no justice, just more of the same ol' shit.

[Winehole23]

Raise taxes? How about they quit raising the spending first. They don't deserve shit.That's right, we'll just pass the tab to our children and grandchildren...you selfish ****.


I get it. Get rich off the destruction of the country. Put the country in a position where there is no other option but to raise taxes.We're about there IMO. Taxes up, spending down. What's your plan for getting us out of the fiscal hole?

Lemme guess, it starts with a tax cut....

[boutons_deux]

"Take the bitter medicine now instead of 6 years"

There wasn't any really bitter medicine after the tech bubble.

The Fed/Greenspan reduced the tech bubble effects by reflating another bubble, the stockmarket/assets/credit bubble by pushing interest rates extremely low.

So there was really no deep, long, bitter medicine after the tech bubble. Sure, gamblers who played in the tech bubble casino lost a lot, but not much beyond those fools.

Tell us how you see the bitterness of letting BoA, Citi, AIG, etc, etc, go bankrupt, maybe into liquidation, wiping out sharedholders, pension plans, institutions, etc.

You fucking wrongies have huge balls for supporting imaginary, fantastic "solutions" you absolutely fucking know you'll never have to face. Fake badasses visible to all.

And tell us again how Repug tax cuts in 2000-2008 paid for themselves. Those tax cuts are still larger than the bailout costs.

$800B cuts in estate taxes ALONE.

5% corp tax rate on $300B of foreign profits repatriated, instead of 35%.

etc, etc.

[angrydude]

???????????????

Boutons_deux, you just proved my point completely. thank you.

You're right, there was no huge problem with the economy after the tech bubble, exactly because the fed did what it did. But guess what? The FED shot its wad. There aren't any interest rates left to cut.

You can't put off a recession forever. If we had allowed the recession back in 01 the current problems wouldn't be as big....if they had happened at all without all that cheap money.

Next time its going to be even worse, only this time our money won't be worth anything after its done. And that's if we're lucky ..... we could just end up with a completely garbage economy for the next 10 years and then bring on the inflation at the end.

The current course of action is completely unsustainable.

[angrydude]

And tell us again how Repug tax cuts in 2000-2008 paid for themselves. Those tax cuts are still larger than the bailout costs.

$800B cuts in estate taxes ALONE.


I believe the difference is those cuts didn't crowd out private investment like the bailout is.

The govt's budget is a big part of the economy, but it isn't the economy.

[boutons_deux]

"crowd out private investment"

The bailout is crowding out no one.

Private investors, capitalists have disappeared mostly, of their own seriously wounded volition, playing it safe rather the pumping up bubbles.

Yes, with Fed rate effectively zero, no leverage there, so reflation by printing money is the only lever the govt has.

I note the wrongies attacking the Repug/Dem govt for trying to fix the problem, while never mentioning the financial sector that caused the problem.

[angrydude]

Does the private sector deserve some blame? Sure. People thought some stupid things. But when you give a kid some candy (or in this case cheap money) you shouldn't be surprised when they get hyperactive.

[Marcus Bryant]

You have to admit, his predecessor softened us up for it some.

Absolutely. Naturally, Americans cannot understand anything other than absolutist terms used to define public policy. It's either "capitalism" or "socialism." And of course these terms themselves have been rendered devoid of any meaning other than "Republican" and "Democrat," respectively.

A true socialist would be quite disappointed with the Obama administration as much as a true capitalist would be with his predecessor.

Bush was about as much a free marketeer as Clinton. In some respects, even less.

[coyotes_geek]

Ah Clinton. Anyone else longing for the days when our president was just interested in how much ass he could tap instead of how many nations he could "spread democracy" to, or how many people he can put on welfare?

[sam1617]

Ah Clinton. Anyone else longing for the days when our president was just interested in how much ass he could tap instead of how many nations he could "spread democracy" to, or how many people he can put on welfare?

The best government is the one who does no governing. :toast

[coyotes_geek]

The best government is the one who does no governing. :toast

Amen to that.

[EVAY]

I hope to see it before I die, but *pay more get less* isn't a very good campaign slogan.

I have been considering starting a drinking club in Austin based on Whig and Free Soil Party themes. That is as far as my own hopes for political change go.

I have one drinking buddy so far. I am the Whig. He is the Free Soiler. We drink a lot of beer and size up the hipster WOTM's at the Moose.
Winehole, I think your plan is as far as almost anyone's hopes go right now. Count me in as a Whig.


In the spirit of evenhandedness the very same questions ought to be posed to the reigning Dems, but I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Where's Obama's goddam plan for this?

You are right about all of this. The Dems have no guts...but they don't even seem to recognize that there is a problem. I have such low expectations of Dems...I expect them to spend money, because that is what they do.
Repubs were supposed to be different. They proved that to be a falsehood.

So, What is Obama's plan? Nothing in this world, that I can find. Not a notion. I assume that something will emerge that includes more 'reform' as well as tax cuts. Whether or not we can survive all of the 'reform' financially is a fair question, I think. I don't question Obama's sincerity, as many conservatives do...I also am ready to consider different ideas, as many repubs are not ( 'tax cuts or die!'). But I sure as hell don't know what he is going to be able to do politically.

[EVAY]

BTW, Winehole, do you [B]seriously[/B drink Sancerre? You joked earlier about beer, and I notice that you occasionally change the wine label you display, but really, Sancerre?? Whew,man, that is some sweet stuff!

[Ignignokt]

We won!

[Winehole23]

BTW, Winehole, do you [b]seriously[/B drink Sancerre? You joked earlier about beer, and I notice that you occasionally change the wine label you display, but really, Sancerre?? Whew,man, that is some sweet stuff!Srsly. I do.

I'd like to try a sweet version sometime. The whites I'm familiar with are all sauvignon blanc based, ranging from flinty to bone dry; red Sancerre is usually a lean pinot noir.

Can you tell me anything about the sweet one you had? I've never even heard of sweet Sancerre.

[Winehole23]

There's a first (and last) time for everything. This curio is from Daily Kos:


Obama's night out in Paris

by Lupin (http://lupin.dailykos.com/)

Share this on Twitter - Obama's night out in Paris (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/10/740714/-Obamas-night-out-in-Paris#)
(http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstoryon ly%2F2009%2F6%2F10%2F740714%2F-Obamas-night-out-in-Paris&title=Obama%27s%20night%20out%20in%20Paris)
Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:57:24 AM PDT

Our local rag, here, in the South of France, LA DEPECHE DU MIDI, was proud that the restaurant chosen by the Obamas for their dinner in Paris, LA FONTAINE DE MARS (http://fontainedemars.com/index.html), belongs to a "local son" (from Tarbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarbes)), Jacques Boudon, and his wife Christiane Landes (also from Tarbes), who've owned and operated it for 17 years.



LA DEPECHE interviewed the owners today. This is a link to the original article in French (http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2009/06/10/621987-Obama-a-dine-chez-une-Tarbaise.html) (with photo) but I'm providing a summary with translated excerpts below for the language-impaired :-)
.../...

According to the interview, the US Embassy called to reserve two private salons, but the owner had no clue that it might be for the President and his family. They only found out on Saturday morning when the Secret Service came to inspect the restaurant.


The Obamas dined with two friends, an American woman writer who lives in Paris and her unidentified guest. One of the salons was used by the President and his guests; the other by the Secret Service. They arrived and left through the service entrance, while the immediate neighborhood was patrolled by the local police.


The Owner said:

"Mr. Obama and his guests behaved like ordinary customers and ordered dishes à la carte. Barack Obama insisted to eat in a relaxed atmosphere. He did not want any protocol. [The Owner greeted the President] in French, as he'd asked, and he answered in French."
The President ordered a leg of lamb and "ile flottante" for dessert (meringue, vanilla cream sauce, caramel). Mrs Obama and the children had steaks and creme brûlee. The table ordered a bottle of Sancerre, although the President doesn't drink wine. As is typically the case, the Owner had himself photographed with Obama, and hopes to frame and display the photo in the restaurant. He added:

"Mr. Obama was delighted. His guest said to me, in French, that he had spent an excellent evening and that he had enjoyed the food. Since then, the Fountain of Mars has been getting emails from all corners of the world. We were already fully booked every night before. That [kind of attention] won't be easy to manage."
Interestingly, the President uses a food taster. A member of the Secret Service sat in the kitchen and tasted every dish before it was served to the President. (The article doesn't mention tasting Mrs. Obama's dishes?) A waiter said:

"For the cooks, it was not very pleasant. But in fact, he [the Agent] turned out to be very relaxed/laid back, and therefore it went very well."

[EVAY]

Srsly. I do.

I'd like to try a sweet version sometime. The whites I'm familiar with are all sauvignon blanc based, ranging from flinty to bone dry; red Sancerre is usually a lean pinot noir.

Can you tell me anything about the sweet one you had? I've never even heard of sweet Sancerre.

Well, I thought they were all Sauvignon-based. But the only time I have had it was with a great goat cheese from the Loire valley. Maybe I just got a bad wine. It was SO fruity it was almost thick, and way too sweet for me. I honestly don't remember the vineyard. I like most Sauvignon Blancs (or I thought I did), but I will normally order a Pouilly Fume.

I thought the stuff on the Pres. in Paris was hysterical. Don't you wonder who was drinking the sancerre though?

Thanks for sharing that. It made me laugh.