Why is this news to anyone?

Here comes the BOOM!

Us Debt Interest vs. Defense & Non-Defense discretionary spending

Take a good look at that graph above. The WSJ created that graph to show how interest payments on US debt will balloon as interest rates finally adjust. The fact of the matter is that our government has kept interest rates artificially low, through a slew of costly tricks, schemes, and scams, in order to keep interest payments low. And their success is debatable. They had to right the interest index, by removing the cost of fuel and food, while throwing billions at the problem in the form of QE and other such stupid schemes, to prevent the interest payment from going over $200 billion a year.

These government games have wrecked the economy and caused serious harm to the middle class, which has been punished for doing the right things. This all has happened while these programs have made the already rich richer and transferred a ton of wealth from the middle class to those that vote for a living. There is a class war going on in the US, but the left has targeted the middle class in order to expand their voter base: the non-productive. But let them keep borrowing despite the fact they are expecting an unprecedented windfall.

Our problem is twofold. First off, we have a shitty economy. Despite whatever they tell you that the numbers represent, the truth is that most new jobs are going to illegals, with over 18 million illegals now flooding our job market, and the 5.6% unemployment rate is a gross exaggeration that masks how bad things really are. If there was any reality to the claim of steady job growth and low unemployment, consumer spending wouldn’t be at its lowest since 2009 and there wouldn’t be a gloomy view of the future. But them is the facts.

Secondly, we fucking spend too much, mostly because the political class wants to buy votes from people impacted by the damage caused by the legislation enacted as a result of the vote buying agenda. Socialist paradises always end up with the same play book and results, and we are heading that way. We need to get spending under control, and the only way that happens is if we cock-block the vote buying schemes. Time is running out on us, and we have a choice between the people that think the answer is a bigger economy and less government spending, especially to improve the quality of life of people not working in the first place at the expense of the middleclass and those working, and those that feel the problem is government and government spending isn’t big enough because people are keeping too much of the government’s money.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    “But a society as wealthy as ours should….”

    That’s the hook line for nearly 100% of the pure crap they spend our tax dollars on. Even the money we don’t even have yet.

    Thumb up 7

  2. richtaylor365

    Come on Alex, how many times have we heard, right here on this blog, “Nothing to worry about, the deficit is shrinking, the days of $1 trillion deficits are over, happy days are here again, so buck up and turn that frown upside down”?

    Of course the real numbers, not those bandied around by the usual sycophants, are scary as hell;

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    Starting in 2016 the deficits go right through the roof.

    But it’s all good, exploding national debt, a worldwide power vacuum willingly filled by the most pernicious, and a nuclear Iran with ready made satellite states eager for their marching orders, Worrywarts are real buzz kills.

    Hot! Thumb up 8

  3. Hal_10000

    Come on Alex, how many times have we heard, right here on this blog, “Nothing to worry about, the deficit is shrinking, the days of $1 trillion deficits are over, happy days are here again, so buck up and turn that frown upside down”?

    That’s a straw man version of a legitimate point: that flat spending has massively cut the deficit (now below 3% of GDP and with spending at 18% of GDP; at historic norms). We’ve always needed entitlement reform; we still need it (we should be cutting defense spending as well). But flat spending has made more progress than all the bullshit fantasies we were hearing about how we were going to immediately balance the budget with a 40% cut in spending.

    Long term budget projections are useful, but ultimately a fool’s game. In the early 90’s, they projected huge deficits. Thanks to controlled spending and a good economy, we got surpluses. Then, in the early 00’s, they projects the debt would be paid off. Thanks to Bush and Obama, we ended up with the biggest deficits in history. Four years ago, they were projecting a far worse budget picture than what you have above. Since then, the projected red ink has shrunk by tens of trillions of dollars.

    Those deficit projections are based on 5% spending growth per annum. 3% would keep the budget balanced over the course of that time. Flat spending would have the budget balanced by 2018 and pay $2.5 trillion of it off by the end of the projection. You don’t need massive budget cuts. You need the kind of spending discipline we’ve shown for the last four years, the kind that balanced the budget in the 90’s, the kind you keep poo-pooing for some reason.

    The deficit wasn’t built in a day; it won’t be solved in a day. We have over a decade of fiscal awfulness to get out from under.

    On another note, the graph shows what I’ve been arguing for a while. The left wingers like Vox think we should be borrowing money for “infrastructure” (i.e., massive pork projects) and “stimulus” (i.e., massive pork projects) because borrowing is so cheap now. Interest rates are lower than inflation. But that’s not going to be the case forever. They don’t have to rise very far, when you’re $18 trillion in hock, for interest to become a huge problem.

    Hot! Thumb up 3

  4. richtaylor365

    You need the kind of spending discipline we’ve shown for the last four years

    Ah, so now Obama is the fiscal president? This really is the Twilight Zone;

    http://i61.tinypic.com/9ismf9.jpg

    The image got blocked but it shows “BUDGET DEFICITS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP, BY ADMINISTRATION”.

    We have over a decade of fiscal awfulness to get out from under

    The “fiscal awfulness” started in 2009, hardly a decade, and who was president for the majority of that time?

    See, I know that you are impressed by an alcoholic that cuts his habit down from 3 bottles of gin a night down to 2, I’d be more impressed if he stopped drinking altogether. And yes, that may not be an apt analogy since the government has to spend some money, but the numbers don’t lie (as much as you would like to poo poo them as pure speculation).

    But you keep wearing those rose colored glasses and ignore the obvious, that yearly deficits add to the national debt. Lowering deficits are great (and all that satisfies you apparently) but they do nothing to lower the debt. Interest rates will not stay at zero forever. You saw Alex’s chart, maybe paying the interest on that ever accumulating debt has just a little something to do with those deficit projections in my chart, the one you ignored.

    Hot! Thumb up 8

  5. Hal_10000

    Ah, so now Obama is the fiscal president? This really is the Twilight Zone;

    http://i61.tinypic.com/9ismf9.jpg

    The image got blocked but it shows “BUDGET DEFICITS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP, BY ADMINISTRATION”.

    FFS Rich, do we have to go over this every single time we discuss budget issues?

    Spending growth under George W. Bush: 73% over 8 years. Average of 7% per year.
    Spending growth so far under Barak Obama: 9% over 6 years, average of 1.4% per year

    That’s counting the stimulus as occurring under Obama. You seem to forget this over and over again — the first trillion dollar deficit was in FY2009 which was a Bush year. It was caused by a $500 billion drop in revenue thanks to the recession (which, of course, Obama totally caused before he was even Senator) and the massive unprecedented eight year explosion in spending which was disguised by real estate bubble revenue. When Bush took office, FY 2001 had a $128 billion surplus. When he left, FY 2009 had a $1.1 trillion deficit, which was only projected to grow. Under Obama, even under the CBO projection, FY2017’s deficit will be $530 billion, assuming interest rates go up. And yet you put up a graphic that pretends that Bush was a model of fiscal responsibility and that this is all Obama?

    Let me ask you something: what was Obama supposed to do when he took office and faced a trillion dollar deficit? Cut spending a trillion? From where? What specific programs should have been cut by a trillion? Go ahead, look at the FY 2009 budget and find a trillion in spending cuts. Now find a trillion that would have passed Congress … ANY Congress.

    I didn’t ignore your chart. I just didn’t selectively pick the worst information from it. The fact is that my “rose-colored” approach has worked. I said that flat budgets would bring the deficit down but was told no-no only drastic massive budgets cuts would work. I warned that the CBO projections for the last five years were pessimistic but was told no-no-no they were optimistic. Even the current projection shows the primary deficit as low and the total deficit as around 3% of GDP. That’s not doomsday. That’s something that can be fixed. Note that even under their projections, revenues are growing faster than interest payments. That’s the wedge you can use to balance the budget and start paying down the debt … if we have spending discipline (which almost certainly includes entitlement reform).

    The fact is that we are on a far more sustainable fiscal path than we were six years ago. Does Obama deserve credit for that? Eh, a bit. Most of the credit goes to a Republican Congress that has blocked his new spending initiatives and held spending flat.

    Hot! Thumb up 2

  6. richtaylor365

    FFS, Hal, do I have to remind you yet again that Obama has added over $8 trillion (soon to be 10) to the national debt? From Washington to Bush, 230 plus years, the debt grew to $10 trillion, then Obama comes along and in his term alone, doubles it. No, we don’t have to have the same argument every time but when you paint him as the next Heritage Foundation recipient for fiscal purity achievement, I need to bring you back down to earth. Next thing you will be comparing him to JFK for tax and budget reform;

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/02/obama-sending-congress-4t-budget-replete-with-new-spending-taxes/

    You seem to forget this over and over again — the first trillion dollar deficit was in FY2009 which was a Bush year.

    Nope, mentioned it in my above comment, but even with this blow out year, Bush’s average deficit as a percentage of GDP was 3.2, compared to Obama at 8.3.

    The fact is that my “rose-colored” approach has worked.

    Worked at what precisely? I’m dying to hear that.

    I said that flat budgets would bring the deficit down but was told no-no only drastic massive budgets cuts would work.

    Wow, you removed the goal posts entirely. Again, the issue is not deficits, it is national debt, the accumulation of year after year deficits. Of course flat spending would lower the deficits (assuming tax receipts stay constant or increase) who do you think said otherwise? But what century in Hal land do we stop deficit spending entirely? You know, do what every household in America has to do and stop running up the credit card? At what point can we just spend that amount that we take in? Or even a more radical idea, how about spending less and work on paying off some of that national debt?
    No, you see Obama halving a $1 trillion deficit (like that could sustained) and you are ready for the “mission accomplished” banner.

    That’s something that can be fixed.

    Again, I guess we have two totally different definitions of “fixed”.

    The fact is that we are on a far more sustainable fiscal path than we were six years ago. Does Obama deserve credit for that? Eh, a bit.

    Yes, he gets credit for drilling 10 holes in the boat, then patching 5 of them, great, what do we do now?

    Thumb up 7

  7. Hal_10000

    Yeah, Rich, Obama created that debt all by himself. All those massive spending programs and that howling recession — that was all created by him. Him alone; him entirely.

    Yes, he gets credit for drilling 10 holes in the boat, then patching 5 of them, great, what do we do now?

    No, he inherited a boat with 10 holes in it that was just taking water. Now we’ve taken on a lot of water but five of the holes are patched. If we keep working, we can patch the remaining five and start bailing. To put it another way: Bush poured gasoline all over the house, set it on fire and walked away. And you want to blame Obama because it burned down afterward.

    Most of that credit actually goes to the Republicans because of the flat budgets (Obama has proposed spending hikes every year, including in his absurd 2016 budget). But he’s signed those budgets into law, so he still gets some credit.

    Again, you dodged the question: what should Obama have done differently to prevent the huge deficits he inherited? How would any President have not racked up such crazy amounts of debt given the state things were in by early 2009?

    No, you see Obama halving a $1 trillion deficit (like that could sustained) and you are ready for the “mission accomplished” banner.

    No, I’m ready for the “things are improving banner”. You think this fiscal picture looks bad? Dig up the CBO projections from five years ago.

    Thumb up 1

  8. AlexInCT *

    Yeah, Rich, Obama created that debt all by himself.

    You are right Hal. He didn’t. But that’s the same copout Obama and his people have been using – blame everyone else for them doing more of the things that are bad – while they tacked on $7.5 trillion of new debt in 6 short years. By the time he is done and we finally get to see the real numbers (we have not seen a real budget in 5 years because of Reid’s senate), I bet he will have doubled the11 trillion he inherited. But you will still be here defending him because it wasn’t all done by him. Think that through.

    The fact of the matter is that Obama, when he was a senator, was against deficits because his party was not in charge. He ran on fiscal discipline and fixing things, after the democrat controlled congress blew 1/2 trillion dollars in 2007 – the highest deficit year in our history up till then – and the financial collapse social engineers like Obama caused. Then he proceeded to run trillion dollar deficits and blame his predecessor for those. What do we have to show for all that spending other than a much expanded voter base for demcorats, because I see nothing that was promised being delivered.

    OK, that’s not true because he did promise to fundamentally change America when he ran, and he will likely leave it broke and broken by the time he is done, so he did keep that promise.

    Thumb up 7

  9. richtaylor365

    Yeah, Rich, Obama created that debt all by himself.

    You can’t have it both ways, if you are going to say Bush did this and Bush did that, his administration, it works the same for Obama, especially spending that has his finger prints all over it. It happened under his watch, he got exactly what he wanted the first two years (the biggest deficit years) because they had the WH and Congress, he owns it plain and simple.

    Again, you dodged the question: what should Obama have done differently to prevent the huge deficits he inherited?

    Bush ran budget deficits averaging $300 billion annually. After harshly criticizing Bush’s budget deficits, Obama proposed budgets that would run deficits averaging $600 billion, and this includes a recovering economy and the troops return home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The first thing he could have done differently is not double down on a bad situation. But the question is phrased poorly, it should be ,”What could Obama have done differently to right the ship, to dig himself out of a $1 trillion deficit hole?”. The short answer is nothing, he is an ideologue, tax and spend is in his DNA. A more nuanced answer is simpler, namely to not listen to his Keynesian handlers, those idiots that think you can spend your way to prosperity. An even shorter answer is this, it was time to tighten the belt and not spend so much money, he did just the opposite. From Heritage Foundation;

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/03/the-obama-budget-spending-taxes-and-doubling-the-national-debt#_ftn4

    President Obama has framed his budget as a break from the “failed policies” of the Bush Administration. Actually, his budget doubles down on President George W. Bush’s borrow, spend, and bailout policies. For example:
     President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.[3]
     President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.[4]

     President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
     President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.[5]
     President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.[6]

    And lastly, I will leave you with another graph;

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    Yeah, I’m thrilled that Obama has cut HIS deficits (although this year it goes up again), but that is still an awful lot of red.

    Thumb up 7

  10. Hal_10000

    You can’t have it both ways, if you are going to say Bush did this and Bush did that, his administration, it works the same for Obama, especially spending that has his finger prints all over it. It happened under his watch, he got exactly what he wanted the first two years (the biggest deficit years) because they had the WH and Congress, he owns it plain and simple.

    When someone sets the house on fire and runs out, I don’t blame the firemen for the ensuing water damage. Bush left Obama a situation where he had no choice but to run trillion dollar deficits without hundreds of billion of dollars in spending cuts or tax hikes — things that would never have happened no matter who controlled Congress (hell, getting flat spending was a hard enough fight). I hold Obama responsible for the stimulus — that’s $300 billion, or about a fifth of the record deficit we had in 2009. But I also give him partial credit for the ensuing six years of spending restraint that have federal spending at the lowest level, relative to GDP, since Bill Clinton was in office.

    You’re focusing on debt because that’s what looks worse for Obama. But debt is difficult to forecast given the vicissitudes of the economy. Spending isn’t difficult to forecast because it under the direct control of the politicians. Spending is what you need to be focused on. When spending is exploding we’re in trouble; when it’s controlled, we’re … well, in less trouble. Under Bush, spending exploded but the deficit wasn’t so bad because we were in a real estate bubble. So Bush looked “good” in debt terms even though he was wrecking the system with his out of control spending. People like me we were warning that we were on an unsustainable path and it would blow up in our faces. It did precisely that. Under Obama, spending’s been basically flat, which I was saying six years ago would balance the budget and begin paying off the debt by 2018. Six years in, we’re still on course for that.

    ,”What could Obama have done differently to right the ship, to dig himself out of a $1 trillion deficit hole?”. The short answer is nothing, he is an ideologue, tax and spend is in his DNA.

    So … you don’t have an answer. Revenues crash, spending is already at high levels and the only way to avoid trillion dollar deficits is trillion dollar budget cuts (or trillion dollar tax hikes). But you don’t have an answer for how to achieve that. You just keep repeating the same thing, over and over again, pretending that we’ve been on some six year spending binge when the plain and simple truth is that we haven’t.

    And, Rich, did you notice that it’s 2015? Why on Earth are you linking to analysis from 2009 that has nothing to do with what has actually happened over the last six years? Spending has been hundreds of billions lower than we were projecting back then. Those massive spending hikes that Heritage talks about in that quote never happened. Barack Obama didn’t increase spending by a trillion dollars. He didn’t accelerate the bailouts. He didn’t spend $634 billion on the prescription drug program. He didn’t double education spending. These things did not happen. What relevance does a “this is what we think Obama will do” piece from six years ago have to do with the price of tea in China when everything it said is provably demonstrably wrong?

    This is precisely the problem. You guys are still acting like it’s 2009 and ignoring anything that doesn’t comport with your vision of Barack Obama, Communist Insurgent. I point out that Obama’s put out half the raging inferno Bush left him with and you keep pretending that he been pouring gas on the fire because, six years ago, that’s what you though he’d do.

    Thumb up 1

  11. richtaylor365

    When someone sets the house on fire and runs out, I don’t blame the firemen for the ensuing water damage

    Your fire analogy is just lame and smacks of desperation. Obama willingly went down that path, hobbled by the progressive mindset, when in doubt bring out the credit card, your argument is hogwash.

    Spending is what you need to be focused on

    All of my comments have focused on exactly that, but were we differ is degrees, huge degrees, and comparisons. Obama starts off with a $1 trillion deficit, then halves it and you are all giggles, but that is still way higher than the Bush year averages. But yeah, burning houses and all.

    So … you don’t have an answer.

    I gave you 3 answers, you didn’t like any of them, your problem, not mine.

    spending is already at high levels and the only way to avoid trillion dollar deficits is trillion dollar budget cuts (or trillion dollar tax hikes).

    Either or, uh, nowhere in the middle,? pointless

    Why on Earth are you linking to analysis from 2009 that has nothing to do with what has actually happened over the last six years?

    You totally missed the point. Your specious argument all along is that Obama could not help himself, forced to play the hand he was dealt, my link highlighted areas where he willingly increased spending, making things worse for himself.

    You guys are still acting like it’s 2009

    Boy, I wish it was 2009 and we could have a do over, the national debt would only be $10 trillion. Fascinating, 6 years of the Obama train wreck makes a figure like $10 trillion almost understandable.

    Thumb up 6

  12. Xetrov

    In order to accept your premise, Hal, that flat spending is just hunky dory, you would have to also accept that the giant downward line in Rich’s graph for 2009, and the climb in spending under Bush is the new norm for spending, and just fine with you. I can’t do that.

    Thumb up 7

  13. AlexInCT *
    When someone sets the house on fire and runs out, I don’t blame the firemen for the ensuing water damage

    Your fire analogy is just lame and smacks of desperation.

    ^^^^ THIS^^^^

    This analogy is idiotic and doesn’t even come close to what’s happening. A more apt analogy would be one where someone sets a house on fire, firemen show up and claim they are the only ones that can and will save the house, and that the guy that set it on fire step out of the way. Then the firemen proceed to spray gasoline on the thing because that’s how you save it. When it blows up, the firemen then blame the guy that set the house on fire for the explosion and pretend they didn’t pour gasoline on it. That’s what Obama is doing.

    The way to KNOW that this is all deliberate is to ask how Obama would have handled things had there been no social engineering gone haywire economic collapse he could blame on his predecessor despite the real culprits being people from his own party. If you for a second make the idiotic case that these crooks would not have done exactly what they did – piss away trillions in tax payer dollars buying votes and funneling money to connected people, campaign donors, and the campaign coffers of democrats – then you are a liar and a shill. They did exactly what democrats ALWAYS will do when in power: grow the power of the state by growing the dependent base, all while lining their own pockets. Clinton was an anomaly because a republican congress forced him to look fiscally responsible despite all his efforts to the contrary.

    This shit is not just par for the course, but how they believe things need to be. About the only economy killing wish they had and didn’t get implemented was massive tax hikes that would increase the amount of pain they have been inflicting on the middle class while pretending they were sticking it to the rich. They worked around that by implementing them indirectly, through Obamacare, which will serve to drive the need for deficit spending and grow the debt at an even more precipitous rate, on someone else’s watch. The left’s governing strategy is always wealth redistribution (social justice or whatever nonsense they calllit): robbing Peter to pay Paul for his vote, and then, for a hefty fee collected by the crooks acting as the middlemen.

    Fuck them, and question anyone still trying to defend or sell any of this shit as what they had to do. For that matter fuck the republicans that are going along with this insane level of spending on a social system that not only rewards any and all possible bad behavior, but punishes good behavior in extreme, too. We need to burn it all down and start over.

    Thumb up 7

  14. Dave D

    How ANYONE can look at that graph and blame it on Bush is beyond my capability to reason!

    Also, why the increasing disparity in the CBO versus WH estimates of the deficits on the graph? Is this the same shit that they toss to us when they say that inflation is only 2.2% for the year when we all KNOW that prices went up way more than that?

    Thumb up 5

  15. Hal_10000

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2

  16. Xetrov

    If John McCain had inherited a trillion dollar deficit and cut it in half by holding spend flat until it was at a 15-year low (relative to GDP), everyone would be praising his fiscal responsibility.

    No, I’d still be critical of his stupid ass decisions for the RINO he is, including the spending he would have most likely mirrored dollar for dollar Obama/Democrats have done. That doesn’t make him a fiscal conservative under any stretch of the imagination, no matter what your fortune telling brain thinks.

    Obama voted as a Senator for the trillion dollar deficit and openly supported TARP on the Senate floor, so I’m not entirely sure why you give him a 100% pass and lay that at the feet of Bush. Then he pushed for his own trillion dollar spend-o-rama that the Democrats passed, furthering the level of asinine spending.

    It’s like you’re being willfully ignorant to the lunatic level of spending the Federal Government has reached because a line on a graph isn’t continuing to go up for the last four years after it jumped to astronomical levels, and willfully ignoring the fact that it is going to go up rapidly and will never stop if the policies of the last 6 years are continued.

    Thumb up 7

  17. richtaylor365

    But he didn’t. It’s a historical fact that those spending increases Did. Not. Happen.

    Are you nuts, THEY ALL HAPPENED!!! You remember the ARRA?

    The Heritage link brought up bailouts;

    https://factreal.wordpress.com/bailouts/

    It brought up Medicare costs, Obamacare will not only blow up the costs of Medicare but it will add $17 trillion (and counting) to the national debt;

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040212-606490-obamacare-adds-17-trillion-in-debt.htm
    It brought up educational spending under Bush;

    2009 Bush ED discretionary spending $45 billion

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

    2014 Obama ED discretionary spending $67.3 billion

    http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/education-federal-budget

    I have to admit, this is a fairly modest increase, given what he has done to all other federal agency budgets, but it still corroborates the Heritage link, which did not even go into entitlements, food stamps, and other public assistance programs, and you have to know about the increase in those budgets.

    I don’t know how you conclude that 1.4 is bigger than 7. That’s not the math I was taught.

    I don’t know how you can conclude that 3.2 is higher than 8.3, that’s not the math I was taught.

    I give up, Hal, if you want to live in Bizzaroland, thinking Obama is the be all/save all, have at it. If you want to delude yourself into thinking he is some kind of fiscal savior, the guy who shrinks government and the national debt, who gets people back to work and off public assistance, the guy who turns the economy around, the guy that makes Americans proud to be Americans again, the guy that does not stab our friends in the back and reward our enemies with bogus drawn red lines and treaties with no teeth, the guy that champions democracy,free speech, and the dignity of the individual around the world with actual leadership and not empty words, the guy that believes in American exceptionalism and it’s need as the blanket of liberty that that the rest of the world counts on, enjoy the view. But don’t get frustrated that we are not buying what you are selling.

    Thumb up 8

  18. Hal_10000

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  19. AlexInCT *

    Can we get something straight? That graph Rich linked above clearly shows Boosh’s administration was well on the way shifting deficit spending in the right direction after the high in 2004. It was still mega bad to those of us that were seeing the writing on the wall that we were deficit spending, and people like me were calling for the unsustainable welfare state to be rolled back even then. The left was fucking furious about this deficit spending. Their major objection then was that they hated that money they wanted directed towards social programs that were nothing but vote buying schemes for the left, were instead going elsewhere. That and they wanted/demanded higher taxes on the rich in their usual class warfare, tax and spend, Keynesian stupidity. Their objection, despite the fucking mountain of lies to the contrary, wasn’t that we were doing too much spending or growing the deficit, but to spending on stuff that didn’t buy them power or influence and allowing people to keep more of their income at the time to boot.

    That spike in 2007 happened right after Pelosi and the left took over the purse strings in 2006, and it was not by accident. They had plans – and blaming Boosh was at the top of the list. There was no reason for that bloat other than the growth of the nanny state. Then we hit the financial crisis, which they milked to win the election by pretending they would control spending and debt. Of course, once they won, all that posturing and lying went out the door. They doubled TARP expenditures from $360 billion asked by the Boosh administration to over $750 billion, and proceeded to parcel that out to their buddies. But that was not enough. Then they told us things were so bad we needed stimulus or we would all die a fiery death. A trillion dollar porkulous package was then passed. That money vanished with abso-fucking-lutely nothing to show for. Despite claims to the contrary there were so few, if any, shovel ready projects or new jobs. In fact it added drag. That was followed by year after year of trillion dollar deficits and lies about how they wanted to fix any of that.

    The left WANTS higher taxes so it can spend more. It will ALWAYS want to spend more, as Obama’s new vote buying give-away of a budget proposal shows. They obviously think we are not spending enough even now. Don’t try to pretend this was a problem they inherited from Boosh’s day. The problem is with the fucking nanny state and the spending.

    Thumb up 6

  20. Hal_10000

    What spike in 2007? The deficit went *down* in 2007. It did so because tax revenues went up and spending rose “only” 2% after rising 7% or more *every single year* the Republicans controlled congress. The spike happened in 2008-2009 because:

    1) spending had already swelled to massive unsustainable levels, then swelled 9% in 2008 and 18% in 2009 due to bailouts, stimulus (from both Bush and Obama) and automatic increases in welfare spending. Total increase $800 billion per year.
    2) when the economy went south, tax revenue crashed by some $500 billion

    And your history of TARP is wrong too. TARP, as passed, was a $700 billion bailout. Dodd-Frank reduced it $475 billion (one of the only things it did … well, not exactly right but not completely goatfuck). They did use it for purposes it was intended (e.g., the idiotic auto bailout). But so did Paulson (e.g, buying stock instead of bad mortgages).

    The reason I keep harping on spending is because that’s what this is all about. If you increase spending, you’re creating present and future debt because you’re raising the baseline, even if revenues temporarily cover up your misdeeds. If you hold spending flat, you’re decreasing the debt because the economy (and revenue) eventually catches up. Holding spending flat is no easy thing. All federal programs are budgeted to grow automatically. To hold total spending flat, you have to actually cut things (see the sequester).

    Why did we balance the budget in the 90’s? Because spending growth was held at 2-3% every single year from 1993 to 1999. Why did the budget explode? Because it grew 7% or more every year but one from 2002 to 2009. Why has the budget deficit been cut by two-thirds? Because spending has been flat every single year since 2009. How can you balance the budget and start paying off the debt? By holding spending growth below 2%.

    Spending restraint: it works.

    Thumb up 2

  21. Hal_10000

    The left WANTS higher taxes so it can spend more. It will ALWAYS want to spend more, as Obama’s new vote buying give-away of a budget proposal shows. They obviously think we are not spending enough even now.

    I agree. This is why you need a Republican Congress. I have not doubt that we would still be facing trillion dollar deficits had the Democrats held Congress for the last four years.

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT *

    I agree. This is why you need a Republican Congress.

    I wish I shared your sense of optimism and fiscal responsibility by republicans, but while they have been magnitudes better than the left, they have not been serious enough about this issue for my tastes as well. I don’t want deficit spending of any kind, and in fact feel that if we don’t start paying off that debt ASAP we are going to implode. The only way that happens is if the social network gets revamped so it no longer serves the people that just suck at the government’s teat for a vote and instead serves those that produce in their times of need. I am not interested in another dark age because society implodes trying to take care of people that are both irresponsible and think they are owed. It’s insane.

    Thumb up 3

  23. Pingback: UNEXPECTEDLY! They spend a shitload again » Right Thinking