According to this guy, there's plenty of it (blame) to spread around. Somewhat interesting read, nonetheless... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Who-t...4.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=
"deficits don't matter" pretty funny that one of the rotating ad banners now at the top of this 6 year old article speaks to joining Ron Paul in not letting the US raise the debt ceiling as that would be a betrayal STOMP
Deficits can matter and they can be a good thing. Companies use debt and run deficits all the time to invest in new equipment, facilities, or to fuel growth. Unfortunately, it's hard to see any of the government's deficit spending as an investment that is going to generate any kind of revenues to offset the deficits.
That's because in this case most of the money spent was gifted to the banking industry with no strings attached on the assumption that they would invest it in America's recovery from the collapse they caused during the Bush/Cheney reign of graft. Unfortunately, the banking industry has neither a sense of patriotism nor any moral fiber.
The banks are lending money, they're just looking to make quality loans us all. Great credit and 20% down gets you a home loan, and FHA is even easier.
Here's an article from during the Bush Administration in which the annual deficit is announced, then the writer gives every excuse you can think of for why deficits don't matter. http://sportstwo.com/threads/191032...rity-Lockbox?p=2640459&viewfull=1#post2640459 Now that a Democrat is President, suddenly the media cares again about deficits, and the excuses of the past 8 years (e.g. ratio of deficit to GDP hasn't changed) aren't permissible.
Deficits matter, but it boils down to how much new debt you assume as a % of the national income (GDP). Consider if you make $1M a year and borrow $10 a year. No big deal. But if you make $1M a year and borrow $150,000 a year, after 10 years your debt will be 1.5x what you make in a year.
To an extent, I agree with that. The problem is that the federal budget doesn't easily ratchet up and down to match changes in the GDP. If you're running a decent size deficit when the economy is booming, the problem gets much worse when the economy tanks (which always happens sooner or later). In an ideal situation (admittedly, this is absurdly pie in the sky), we'd run a small surplus in boom times and small deficit during bad times and it'd balance out over time.
We're to blame. Until we start thinking about future generations instead of ourselves, we'll never get out of this predicament. We elect people who tell us what we want to hear, fully understanding that they're making promises someone else will have to pay.
I'm ok with them running a $10 deficit on $1M income forever. After a lot of years, the debt may rise to $14T like now, but GDP would be many many times higher than the $14T it is now, too. So it would still be like $10/$1M.
Your chart isn't right. The govt.'s fiscal year is September to September, so what your chart credits to Reagan's first year was Carter's last budget, etc. So Carter left office with a deficit 2x what it was when he came into office. The deficit was 2x higher than that EIGHT years later when Reagan was done. Carter served four, you know. And it's far more interesting to see who controlled congress during those years, since every one of the budgets Reagan submitted were declared DOA and never voted on. The constitution requires all spending bills (budget) start in the House. One more thing, the Pelosi/Reid/Obama deficits are way off your chart. Put them on it and the rest become 1 pixel tall.
What numbers are you using? I don't see how you get 2x for Carter from the chart, no matter where you start counting. More like 2.5x Uhm, ok. So Reagan didn't sign the bills? Of course, you aren't mentioning that the first year of Obama belongs to Bush, according to your first sentence. So 'them' is really 'it', because there has only been one year so far. barfo
