Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

[Raider]

by reducing government spending or raising taxes — in the midst of a harsh recession.

Raising taxes? Yes

Reducing Goverment spending? NO, Not with Democrats in control of both houses and a spending fool with a over active pen will that ever happen.

Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger, Ap Economics Writer – 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – Nine months into the fiscal year, the federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time.

The imbalance is intensifying fears about higher interest rates and inflation, and already pressuring the value of the dollar. There's also concern about trying to reverse the deficit — by reducing government spending or raising taxes — in the midst of a harsh recession.

The Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit in June totaled $94.3 billion, pushing the total since the budget year started in October to nearly $1.1 trillion.

The deficit has been propelled by the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. Paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also is a major factor.

The country's soaring deficits are making Chinese and other foreign buyers of U.S. debt nervous, which could make them reluctant lenders down the road. It could force the Treasury Department to pay higher interest rates to make U.S. debt attractive longer-term.

"These are mind boggling numbers," said Sung Won Sohn, an economist at the Smith School of Business at California State University. "Our foreign investors from China and elsewhere are starting to have concerns about not only the value of the dollar but how safe their investments will be in the long run."

Government spending is on the rise to address the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and an unemployment rate that has climbed to 9.5 percent.

Congress already approved a $700 billion financial bailout and a $787 billion economic stimulus package to try and jump-start a recovery, and there is growing talk among some Obama administration officials that a second round of stimulus may be necessary.

This has many Republicans and deficit hawks worried that the U.S. could be setting itself up for more financial pain down the road if interest rates and inflation surge. They also are raising alarms about additional spending the administration is proposing, including its plan to reform health care.

President Barack Obama and other administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have said the U.S. is committed to bringing down the deficits once the country has emerged from the current recession and financial crisis.

Another stimulus?

National Health Care?

When this fiscally irresponsible IDIOT is booted out of office, (and he WILL be) Republicans are going to have the biggest economic mess in history to clean up.

[ilovedomains]

You just dont get the big picture. Us socialists have a plan...

First we use the liberal biased news media to portray all Republican candidates as nitwits. That way no one will vote for them. Once the republicans are out of the way, Obama can start ripping off the wealthy.

Obama will pay for his deficit spending by taxing the rich. When the rich run out of money, we will just ship them to FEMA concentration camps and use them as slave labor to build cars for GM.

See? Deficit problems and GM's labor problems both solved at once. No wonder the liberal biased news media think he's the messiah!

[500,000]

The bail out turned out to be Big Government build up.

Jobs are still dropping like 300 million flies in a cloud of RAID!

[fab]

When this fiscally irresponsible IDIOT is booted out of office

Are you saying that his foreign/defense policies are alright.

[Raider]

Are you saying that his foreign/defense policies are alright.

On the National Security and Foreign policy front, I think he's doing a OK job.... I would say "Good" but his decision in the first place to release abuse photos of detainees by U.S. soldiers, is quite disturbing...


Luckily he had some sense in his head to listen to Nouri Al Maliki, that such a move would erupt into violence.

[jberryhill]

The Bush administration used "off budget" supplementals to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Had you listened during the campaign, you would know that the Obama administration always planned to include those and other prior "off budget" items in the actual budget.

The DoD component of this budget is therefore 534 Billion, which is more than half of the total.

I would say "Good" but his decision in the first place to release abuse photos of detainees by U.S. soldiers, is quite disturbing...

Ummm.... Can you give me some background on that comment. The Obama administration is fighting the release of any more photos of the type that were released during the Bush administration.

Ultimately, the decision is not going to be up to the administration anyway, since a court had already ordered them released, and the dispute is going up on appeal.

[Raider]

Ummm.... Can you give me some background on that comment. The Obama administration is fighting the release of any more photos of the type that were released during the Bush administration.

Ultimately, the decision is not going to be up to the administration anyway, since a court had already ordered them released, and the dispute is going up on appeal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...tchy/3243795_1


I'm leaving for a trip and wont be back for a week.... Just in case you wonder why I dont reply back.

[jberryhill]

Yes, Raider, prior to following a court order on the release of the photos, the president sought and obtained a variety of views, took them into account, and made a decision. Maliki's opinion might provide an extra fact on appeal in the next go-round on this thing, but that's unlikely.

So is your problem that the president did something with which you agree? Or simply that he is open to a variety of opinions before making a decision?

[Acro]

The problem with hardcore Republicans is lack of understanding of an administration that sweeps the stained floors, cleans the cabinet messes and organizes the Big Fat Restaurant called "US Government". Hardcore Republicans are used to conservative rhetoric and they don't quit. Unless their name is Sarah Palin, that is.

[jberryhill]

Hardcore Republicans are used to conservative rhetoric and they don't quit.

Oh, I understand that. I'm simply gobsmacked by the notion that Raider thinks it is even a "criticism" for pointing out that the president made a decision with which she agrees. That's just plain bizarre. Had he been determined to release the photos, he wouldn't have consulted with anyone else, and simply done so. But he didn't, and so that's a "bad thing"? I just don't even understand how that is a criticism.

[Raider]

So is your problem that the president did something with which you agree? Or simply that he is open to a variety of opinions before making a decision?

Neither, Obama FLIP FLOPPED on the release of the photos, What don't you understand about that?.

It appears to me that your completely oblivious to what went on, You know the Obama Administration decided to end appeals against the release of the photos, don't you?

Read and watch the video OK?

The problem with hardcore Republicans is lack of understanding

And the problem with you Liberals is lack of knowledge.

[jberryhill]

Obama FLIP FLOPPED on the release of the photos, What don't you understand about that?.

What I don't understand about it is when did it become a virtue NOT to consider alternatives and take in different viewpoints before taking an action.

Someone who has never changed their mind from an initial position doesn't have much of a mind in the first place.

Keep up with the freaking issue. The Administration has to appeal the order, in order not to release the photos:

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=10833

A federal appeals court earlier this week cleared the way for the Obama administration to ask the Supreme Court to hear its argument that a series of photos depicting detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be released.

The administration had first indicated it would not appeal the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York (2nd Cir.), which ordered the photos released. Obama has since changed his mind; the appellate court needed to take a procedural step -- rescinding its order returning the case to the lower court -- in order for the government's appeal to move forward.

I know that legal procedure is not the simplest thing in the world, and reporting on it generally sucks, but if you really want to argue appellate procedure with me, that's your call to make.

What you do not understand, in the least, is that what is ultimately going to control this issue is application of the Freedom of Information Act. After the case runs its course, the law is going to require their release or not.

[Gerry]

I wonder how much of this may still be viewed as classified information in light of the Dick Cheney issue of not disclosing to Congress some CIA actions, including torture, hit squads, and now I hear Chinese military observers invited?

This is getting juicy good.

[INFORG]

Republicans are going to have the biggest economic mess in history to clean up.

I think you meant to say "legacy to continue"

[Raider]

What I don't understand about it is when did it become a virtue NOT to consider alternatives and take in different viewpoints before taking an action..

I never said it did or didn't.. This is about Obama's decision not to fight the release of the photos after the ACLU won the lawsuit. What are you NOT getting about that?

Enough already, I answered your question, so please try to stay on the original topic, Which is case you forgot, deals with Obama running up the Budget deficit to over 1 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Perhaps you'd like to share with us what the American people got for Obama's $787,000,000,000.00 BILLION Dollar Stimulus plan?

It sure wasn't job creation, We already LOST over 2.3 MILLION jobs since the Stimulus went into effect. Obama and the Democrats promised unemployment would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus passed, It did pass and now unemployment has soared far above 9 percent, and Obama now admits it may rise to double digits.

Obama vs Obama on the Stimulus

And in case you dont know, $460 Billion of the stimulus money is un-spent, So I ask you JB; Are you FOR recalling that money to pay down the Budget deficit OR continue blowing it on every Liberal entitlement cause under the sun?

I think you meant to say "legacy to continue"

No, We had 7 years of Prosperity remember?.. A legacy Obama will NEVER come close to having.

[Donald Aquilano]

This is all I got to say.....

"Recession is when your neighbor loses their job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Obama loses his."

Amen.

[Gerry]

I just wonder how, with the Paulson plan, people can not see that $700 billion is just $300B shy of one trillion.

So, when Paulson Plan states:

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time .

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

This should concern people. It authorizes the increasing the national debt by 7 BILLION AT ANY ONE TIME up to an amount of $2.35 TRILLION.

And this is basically no one else's business:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency

Does that not scare the shit out of people?

This epitomizes the Bush closed administration and secrecy. Secrecy NOT IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, but secrecy in the, "let's don't tell anyone what we are doing" sense.

That new figure from a previous figure of:

Amendments

2006--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109-182 substituted
``$8,965,000,000,000'' for ``$8,184,000,000,000''.
2004--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108-415 substituted
``$8,184,000,000,000'' for ``$7,384,000,000,000''.
2003--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108-24 substituted ``$7,384,000,000,000''
for ``$6,400,000,000,000''.
2002--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-199 substituted
``$6,400,000,000,000'' for ``$5,950,000,000,000''

Here's the fun(ny) part.

Notice the dates I posted from that amendment.

When Dubya took office, the national debt was $5,950,000,000,000

When Dubya left office, the national debt had been risen to $11,315,000,000,000.

That is nearly a 200% increase. In 8 years, he managed to burn through more money than at any other period in history. And no one else at any time and at any point doubled the national debt.

We did not have the money then, we certainly do not have the money now, and the Paulson plan effectively raises the national debt by an additional $2.35 Trillion.

Now, we can call it National Debt or Budget Deficet. Or we can call it what it actually is...IOU's.

We did not have it then, we do not have it now.

Someone(s) got exceptionally wealthy during the reign of 2000-2008.

[jberryhill]

I never said it did or didn't.. This is about Obama's decision not to fight the release of the photos after the ACLU won the lawsuit. What are you NOT getting about that?

Enough already, I answered your question

No you didn't - and you brought up the subject. One does not "decide" whether to follow a court order. You are upset because the president has taken a course of action with which you agree. That's just retarded. He could have immediately released the material in response to the court order - but didn't - and now you are upset.

You still haven't responded to the observation that the budget is figured differently, since a lot of "off budget" items have been brought on budget. Naturally, the whining about the increased number is predictable.

And, now, to top it off, you are absolutely correct that there is an unspent 460 billion. That means UNSPENT, duh.

Of course, since the Dow went up something on the order of 500 points this week, you won't be whining on that subject until the next fluctuation.

Enjoy your whining. It's a great day, and I'm headed out for a swim.

[Donald Aquilano]

I just wonder how, with the Paulson plan, people can not see that $700 billion is just $300B shy of one trillion.

So, when Paulson Plan states:

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time .

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

This should concern people. It authorizes the increasing the national debt by 7 BILLION AT ANY ONE TIME up to an amount of $2.35 TRILLION.

And this is basically no one else's business:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency

Does that not scare the shit out of people?

This epitomizes the Bush closed administration and secrecy. Secrecy NOT IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, but secrecy in the, "let's don't tell anyone what we are doing" sense.

That new figure from a previous figure of:

Amendments

2006--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109-182 substituted
``$8,965,000,000,000'' for ``$8,184,000,000,000''.
2004--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108-415 substituted
``$8,184,000,000,000'' for ``$7,384,000,000,000''.
2003--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108-24 substituted ``$7,384,000,000,000''
for ``$6,400,000,000,000''.
2002--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-199 substituted
``$6,400,000,000,000'' for ``$5,950,000,000,000''

Here's the fun(ny) part.

Notice the dates I posted from that amendment.

When Dubya took office, the national debt was $5,950,000,000,000

When Dubya left office, the national debt had been risen to $11,315,000,000,000.

That is nearly a 200% increase. In 8 years, he managed to burn through more money than at any other period in history. And no one else at any time and at any point doubled the national debt.

We did not have the money then, we certainly do not have the money now, and the Paulson plan effectively raises the national debt by an additional $2.35 Trillion.

Now, we can call it National Debt or Budget Deficit. Or we can call it what it actually is...IOU's.

We did not have it then, we do not have it now.

Someone(s) got exceptionally wealthy during the reign of 2000-2008.

What you fail to mention is that Obama has not only continued the Henry Paulson plan but put it on steroids. You think Bush ran up the debt to record levels wait till Obama gets done. Bush's spending will look timid compared to Obama's.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention that Obama is talking about another round of stimulus. We haven't even spent the last one yet and he thinks we need to print more money!!! Someone needs to have a talk with the man about economics because he don't know nothing about it.

[Raider]

No you didn't - and you brought up the subject. One does not "decide" whether to follow a court order. You are upset because the president has taken a course of action with which you agree.

No, I'm upset because the FOOL was considering following the court order, remember?

That's just retarded. He could have immediately released the material in response to the court order - but didn't - and now you are upset.

He could of immediately appealed the decision too, but DIDN'T!... That alone is retarded.

You still haven't responded to the observation that the budget is figured differently, since a lot of "off budget" items have been brought on budget. Naturally, the whining about the increased number is predictable.

And, now, to top it off, you are absolutely correct that there is an unspent 460 billion. That means UNSPENT, duh.

Ah, Now I see.. The STIMULUS was created to bring budgets up to budget?, It wasn't about creating jobs and putting people back to work? Maybe you should back to school and learn what the word "Stimulus" means.

And what about Obama's projected job numbers for Stimulus?.. You keep dodging this one, He projected over 600,000 jobs correct? and the best he come up with now is; We saved a 150,000...LMAO.

The Stimulus has done the opposite of what it was intended to do, and now Obama wants another Stimulus, I suppose you, along with all the other Liberal idiots, will support that one too.