Obama's spending is going to creat deficits that are far worse than he is telling you.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090320/D9721GMO0.html

Liberals are continuing to be blind to what his holiness is doing. After all, he's the anointed one that is going to lead us to the promised land.

The only liberal on here that shows signs of seeing the light of what is happening is CJ. Good for him.

Deane, can you give me an example of one five-year projection by the CBO that has proven even roughly accurate? I think you'll find, if you go back, that they are historically far wrong, both for better or for worse. The further out the projections go, the less accurate they have been.

Both Obama's long-term deficit projections and the CBO's are based on guesses of where the economy will be in 5-10 years, and no one really knows. Despite these long-term estimates, each year's budget will be based on that year's political climate, not on an estimate made years ago.

But your new-found care about the budget deficit that began January 20, 2009, is moving, even if not particularly convincing.

Let's just pretend all of this massive spending is going to bring us roses and lollipops.

You should be worried about the fed, printing 3 trillion or so, backed by NOTHING.

If we want to build anything, improve anything, MAKE value, we have to borrow in order to do so.

What that projection fails to account for is the increase in our worth that will come with a whole lot of that spending.

What the Fed just did was tax you on everything you have and hold, at a rate of about 5 to 15 percent. Think about that.

So, I'm gonna add to this.

SInce we have a debt based system, the only way for the government to actually make investments is to realize some debt. This is true for all of us, save those things we do simple labor for, and even those have some minor league debt attached.

Food, and our society are required to empower that labor.

Just looking at the COST of something isn't doing anybody justice. There is COST and there is value returned. Both must be considered to understand if the debt is a burden, or an investment.

If the debt is realized as an actual investment, and it pays off, then we gain, and the debt retires.

If it's just spending, as in "hey! Let's make a bomb and blow it up!", then the debt is then a burden.

Two different things.

When Clinton balanced the budget, really what happened is all of us were essentially pulling from our assets, generating the perception of no debt, but the truth was consumer debt was running high.

During Bush, that magic card game started to play out, causing problems. The tax cuts, opened up some liquid dollars, but those were small compared to the real debt obligation eating at everybody.

Now, we have few real assets to pull from, and the disparity in wages and our productivity problems are home to roost!

Now, debt is a forced thing, unless we want to surrender and just be owned by others. Nobody wants that.

Spending then, must occur. This is no different from somebody remodeling their house. You borrow, bank creates some dollars for you to use, and you do the remodel. If you actually do that, you capture that value, and pay down the debt with the result being you are worth more.

If you don't, then you have an obligation without corresponding value, and you are worth less!

We need to be worth more because we've got an assload of debt. Spending on investments can pay this back.

That's what a stimulus is! We've done it before, and it works.

The other kind of spending --which is more of a real COST, is what the Fed is doing. Literally printing money, with no value --no innovation applied to labor over time attached.

That's essentially a nationwide tax, as the dollar is diluted, and we ALL are worth less as a result.

At least consider both factors when hammering on this problem, will you?

I've been spending the time to learn how money works. All of us should be doing this. We challenge each other, vet that understanding, with the reward of actually seeing how things are going down with some idea of it's worth to us.

Not doing this, and bitching, is just head games.

BTW: That working on money and value has produced some nice side benefits. Our small business decisions are getting better. All of us are working on money, and seriously considering the dynamics of value creation.

We are also then working on communicating value to increase value perception. That's our trust and faith.

In this shitty economy, our little firm is pulling it out. It's gonna be a grind, but we think it's a doable grind. The old means and methods from years past were not quite correct. There was enough slack in the system to make it work, but no more.

Now it actually has to build real value and we must communicate all of it. Painful, but very good exercize that trancends a few happy fun Internet message board debates.

Come on Deane. I know you love this stuff. Tell us something about value, WHY things will go the way you think they will. Contribute to the value here and let's all get a bit smarter instead of just venting.

As I've been working through these things, I have been sharing them with the others in the business. We take an hour every few days and look at our spending, our debt, and our value perception and our real value. We have all learned a ton, and have shattered some rather ordinary and established expectations as a result.

What I am trying to articulate is the value inherent in conversations at that level is fairly tangible. And the return can be quick. Few things are like that these days!

Being able then to put it into context with politics is just extra happy fun bonus stuff!

Put your gripes in simple business terms. Educate us. I know you build companies. I know you are good at it. Share some huh?

The budget is an honest one. W. never put the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget so it didn't show in the deficit only in the overall debt.
W. also used money from Social Security to make the books look better.

This is fiscal chaosX1000 times for our country...insane, insane, insane...hold on!

The chaos began before Obama got into office.

Exactly!!

Now that all the cards are on the table, we can make rational decisions about these things.

Bush just hid a lot of stuff.

You Republicans who crow about deficit spending during hard economic times are an amazing bunch of hypocrites. Where were you during the "boom" times of the last few years when Bush was cutting taxes on billionaires and increasing our national debt by trillions? Seriously, you have absolutely zero credibility on this topic if you supported the Republican agenda over the last decade. I have no idea how you can post such things with a straight face.

The wise thing for our government to do would have been to run a tight fiscal ship when things were good - that means, no huge increases in defense spending, no tax cuts for Warren Buffet, etc. That way, when you hit an economic slow-down, you have some cushion to work with. Bush has left us instead with a huge national debt that makes Obama's task a whole lot harder. You HAVE to run a deficit in a slow economy and you shouldn't run huge ones in good times.

Some predictions just never turn out as planned. As Donald Rumsfeld pointed out leading up to the Iraq War:

"if you think we’re going to spend a billion dollars of our money over there, you are sadly mistaken.”

And he also said it "might last 6 days, maybe 6 weeks, but I doubt 6 months".

And we all know how close his prediction came to reality.

Obama has to spend to fix Bush's mess, simple as that. The alternative is a depression and 15% unemployment.

The conservatives are still in total denial of the Bush economic death spiral that brought us here. They never will really understand how supply side models, under several conservative or faux conservative administrations, have flaws that can be easily exacerbated by mismanagement.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton�s policy in order to revive Reagan�s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his �base� as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush�s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I�ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.

But the cost to the public has been a return to the exploding deficits of the Reagan years. Bush blew through Clinton�s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1022-26.htm

So before you let someone like Deane get under your skin with misguided and defective accusations about deficit management, constantly remind him that the current times are the effect, not the cause, and that there are few options.

Let's just pretend all of this massive spending is going to bring us roses and lollipops.

And YOU thought that Iraq was going to bring this as well and look what we got. BILLIONS of dollars a month down the toilet.

Deane_johnson:
Let's just pretend all of this massive spending is going to bring us roses and lollipops.

If it was bombs to make war you wouldn't mind.

And if it was killing INNOCENT women and children in Iraq he's be ALL for it....

How does a liberal moron know what I would be for?

I don't know... We keep listening to YOU tell us what we are for and your a neo-CON moron.....

All you got is name calling and insults.