U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions

[boutons_deux]

"Obama's debt"

.... completely due to the pile he inherited by 8 years of Repug misrule, and 30 years of VRWC policies.

Barry's first year budget was smaller than dubya's last year budget.

[ElNono]

The point is that Social Spending is the highest outlay, and is not a cons utional addressed item.

What do you mean by "not a cons utional addressed item"?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 disagrees.

And Military spending might not be the highest, but it's absolutely way beyond any other non-discretionary spending, basically in the same realm as mandatory programs like Social Security.

Again, there's no silver bullet. Cuts are going to have to come from all areas, and principally from the biggest spenders, like Medicare, Medicaid, SS and the DoD.

I purposely left out SS the first time I did the graph because it is suppose to be a separate program from tax revenues.

It's still an outlay that needs to be budgeted and accounted for.

Look at the PDF I linked. There are different tables broken down different ways.

The first table you referenced has basically all the information you need as far as what we're discussing. It backs up my contention that Military spending is among the top 4 heaviest outlays, and by a wide margin compared with the rest. Thanks for providing the link.

[MannyIsGod]

CG has a point. I have razor thing margins right now and if I got a 600 dollar stimulus check that isn't getting spent - its going right into my savings account because I'll more than likely need it in the near future.

[ElNono]

I agree the better 'stimulus' would come from direct temporary govt employment, much in the same way that it did in WWII and got us out of the Great Depression.

[Winehole23]

CG has a point. I have razor thing margins right now and if I got a 600 dollar stimulus check that isn't getting spent - its going right into my savings account because I'll more than likely need it in the near future.

What if it was a $5000 check?

[Capt Bringdown]

Deficit hawks: Don't go nuts on cuts

Some top deficit hawks from the left and right are flashing a warning sign: Making too many federal spending cuts now will hurt the economy.

These are the same folks, mind you, who have been preaching the perils of debt long before the cut-now-or-else Tea Party came to town.

And their message comes at a time when Republicans are pushing for trillions in federal spending cuts -- with as much in the near-term as possible -- in exchange for raising the country's debt ceiling.

[Capt Bringdown]

I agree the better 'stimulus' would come from direct temporary govt employment, much in the same way that it did in WWII and got us out of the Great Depression.

We didn't get adequate sized fiscal stimulus until it became a matter of national security, but the economics don't dictate that it has to be a war, a massive fiscal stimulus could be done for peaceful, productive purposes.

[ElNono]

We didn't get adequate sized fiscal stimulus until it became a matter of national security, but the economics don't dictate that it has to be a war, a massive fiscal stimulus could be done for peaceful, productive purposes.

Oh, I agree. And you could put that people to work on things like infrastructure, where you need to make the investment sooner or later anyways.

[Capt Bringdown]

Oh, I agree. And you could put that people to work on things like infrastructure, where you need to make the investment sooner or later anyways.

Too bad our current politics preclude this from happening. We aren't suffering from a gridlock that prevents action, but rather a monism that is supply-side economics.

IMO, without a real, actual Left/Labor voice, things will only get worse for American workers. Neocons or Neolibs, what's the difference? Both are for austerity.

[2centsworth]

I agree the better 'stimulus' would come from direct temporary govt employment, much in the same way that it did in WWII and got us out of the Great Depression.

Way too isolated and slow. The best stimulus
Is a payment of about 300 per month to each working
Individual for the next 24 months.

We have a customer problem in this economy.
Time to help the customer. We will see a trickle
Up affect.

[boutons_deux]

"300 per month to each working"

That will get a lot of bridges, dams, electrical grid, roads, sewers, water systems, solar power facilities built and maintained.

[Capt Bringdown]

Way too isolated and slow. The best stimulus
Is a payment of about 300 per month to each working
Individual for the next 24 months.

We have a customer problem in this economy.
Time to help the customer. We will see a trickle
Up affect.

This does nothing for folks out of work, is a simple handout that isn't earned, and doesn't address our infrastructure needs, which as others have pointed out, need to be addressed at some point. And, as others have mentioned, given the insecurity of our current job market, sticking that extra $300 bucks in the bank and not spending it is the most likely scenario.

[2centsworth]

This does nothing for folks out of work, is a simple handout that isn't earned, and doesn't address our infrastructure needs, which as others have pointed out, need to be addressed at some point. And, as others have mentioned, given the insecurity of our current job market, sticking that extra $300 bucks in the bank and not spending it is the most likely scenario.

If you think an extra 300 pet month to work g families is not going
To be spent, you live in a different world than I do.

[ducks]

"the stimulus was a failure"

not because it was a bad idea (Keynesian counter-cyclical spending) but because it was too small compared to the Depression

"Obama should've gone for a much bigger one"

Repugs would have blocked it

I'm reading about "full-employment" structural unemployment movfing for 4.5-5% to 7 or 8%. Millions of people are going to be very ed, very 3rd world-y.

yeah throwing more money down the toliet is a smart thing to do
mine liberals have no brains

it is not the gov responsibilty to bail out business
let them go out of business


has happened in the past and it has worked out

and guess what bailouts for people staying in houses are stupid
people got kicked out of their houses
grown the up and have been better off in the long run
THEY LEARNED THEIR LESSON

BUT THE DONKEYS want to use my tax paying money to help them out

cost seniors raises in their retirement
making them trying to survive on 850 a month

[ducks]

"300 per month to each working"

That will get a lot of bridges, dams, electrical grid, roads, sewers, water systems, solar power facilities built and maintained.

no it will not


if you are going to use tax payers money
you pay 50 thousand to everyone house loan
the money NEVER touches people

people would refinace then to lower their payments
it would help out the ecconomy

[coyotes_geek]

If you think an extra 300 pet month to work g families is not going
To be spent, you live in a different world than I do.

Half the nation thinks a depression is on it's way. A third are afraid they're about to lose their jobs. What different world are you living in where you think that's an enviroment where people are going to go out and start buying stuff they don't need?

Approximately 48 percent of Americans say they think that a Great Depression is either very or somewhat likely to occur within the year, according to a CNN Opinion Research Poll,

Respondents' fear that they would soon become unemployed also ed to an all-time high of 30 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_874406.html

[boutons_deux]

Here's fncking investment banker/misognynist Larry Summers, who absolutely refused to give Barry any input or plans for job creation, NOW asking for more stimulus

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...2F+Top+News%29

[2centsworth]

Half the nation thinks a depression is on it's way. A third are afraid they're about to lose their jobs. What different world are you living in where you think that's an enviroment where people are going to go out and start buying stuff they don't need?





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_874406.html

Yes, because during the depression no one
Would have ever spent an extra 300 per month.
Do you actually read what you post?

[coyotes_geek]

Yes, because during the depression no one
Would have ever spent an extra 300 per month.

Correct. People would just take their $300 and hoard it.

Do you actually read what you post?

Always.

[Winehole23]

How do you know what everyone would do with the $$$, CG? Honest question.

[coyotes_geek]

How do you know what everyone would do with the $$$, CG? Honest question.

Look at wage growth, retail sales, household debt and household savings over the last three years. For all the attempts we've made to put more money into consumers hands ($600, making work pay, SS rate cut to 4.2%, etc) all we've got to show for it are declining retail sales, an increase in the household savings rate and reduced debt per household. All this despite a 15%-20% chunk of the population who isn't in a position to reduce debt or increase savings because they're unemployed or underemployed. The combination of all those events certainly suggests to me that there are far more people pocketing their extra money than there are people spending it.

[Winehole23]

So it was an educated guess. In fact a fairly persuasive one. I should have known.

[Winehole23]

One question: would you tend to agree or disagree that deleveraging and debt retirement are beneficial for the US or that more generally, an increased savings rate is a good thing, despite what it means for short term growth?

[ElNono]

Look at wage growth, retail sales, household debt and household savings over the last three years. For all the attempts we've made to put more money into consumers hands ($600, making work pay, SS rate cut to 4.2%, etc) all we've got to show for it are declining retail sales, an increase in the household savings rate and reduced debt per household. All this despite a 15%-20% chunk of the population who isn't in a position to reduce debt or increase savings because they're unemployed or underemployed. The combination of all those events certainly suggests to me that there are far more people pocketing their extra money than there are people spending it.

This 'correction' might be for the economy right now, but it's not in itself a bad thing, IMO. Ultimately, it should eventually lower lending enough.

But that's exactly why I think direct government job creation would work much better, and as I said earlier, infrastructure could be a great target.

[coyotes_geek]

One question: would you tend to agree or disagree that deleveraging and debt retirement are beneficial for the US or that more generally, an increased savings rate is a good thing, despite what it means for short term growth?

I agree. There are definitely going to be long term benefits to household deleveraging. The biggest benefit in my mind being the amount of wealth that households will be able to keep for themselves instead of transferring to banks in the form of interest payments. Reducing the number of households living paycheck to paycheck should also make it a little harder for bad economic news to spook the populace.