i'm curious how accurate these cbo predictions have been in the past.

seek and ye shall receive:



i THINK these are deviations from projected tax revenue. but the link i got it from doesn't say explicitly what the plot is:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2005/01/misestimates-in-cbos-projections.html

[Edited on July 18, 2009 at 12:52 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 18, 2009 at 12:55 AM. Reason : .]

7/18/2009 12:45:01 AM

1 Trillion, eh?

thanks, Bush Administration.

Worst ever.

7/18/2009 1:52:48 AM

More like, thanks Bush administration and Democratic congress

7/18/2009 9:28:34 AM

the Democratic Congress lowered taxes, started wars, and allowed Wall Street to get punch drunk with greed and "irrational exuberance" in the mid 00's?

7/18/2009 10:09:49 AM

No, but they were elected into office on promises to fix these things and instead went on a binge of spending using more tax payer money in a few months than we've used in the entire Iraq war.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bailoutnationchart.jpg

7/18/2009 11:00:11 AM

The Keynesian "throw money at it" policy ideas were concocted from capitalist pigs Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner at the urging of their Goldman Sachs buddies. You can't really fault congress for not understanding the situation and instead trusted the money interests from Wall Street. Why shouldn't they trust them, Goldman Sachs has made money hand over fist in the middle of the worst recession in ages, clearly, they know more about things than Congress does.

7/18/2009 11:16:09 AM

I absolutely can fault them. Congress has a responsibility to the people to protect their interests. Congress should never under any circumstances vote for anything without understanding the issue at hand and especially without reading what they are voting for in its entirety. I know it's too much to ask that the people we elect to represent us do their jobs, but it would be nice if we held them accountable anyway. But this is what we get for electing and pushing for a hugely expanded federal government. A corrupt massive body with more and more direct influence on the lives of americans across the country who's power and influence are then easily bought by those with money and influence.

7/18/2009 11:27:24 AM

Quote :

"I absolutely can fault them."

What exactly are you faulting them for? So far, the stock market looks fantastic given the abyss we were staring at in early March.

I'd say the economy is on the road to recovery.

7/18/2009 11:34:00 AM

How about faulting them with saddling the country with massive amounts of debt that make our previous expenditures look like petty cash? How about faulting them for implementing policies designed to maintain the current inflated conditions of the economy, instead of allowing things to come back down to reasonable. I cringe every time I hear about how we need to stop home prices from falling. We don't, we need to let them fall until such time as they more accurately reflect the real values of the homes. Same with protecting companies that are "too big to fail". By saying something is "too big to fail" we are implicitly guaranteeing that no matter how badly they're mis-managed, or how much they suck, we (the tax payers) will bail them out time and time again.

I don't give a crap how the stock market looks right now, saying that because it's on an up right now and that means we must be doing everything right is the same argument hooksaw uses when he grabs the latest weather report showing that June this year was colder than it was last year and saying that must mean we're entering a period of global cooling.

7/18/2009 12:07:30 PM

^

OK, Glenn Beck. But what do you propose people actually do?

In my mind the GOP was held accountable for the years of scandals, wasteful spending, moralizing, etc. etc. that led up to the 2006 elections. They were routed. So how do we hold the Democratic party accountable? Re-elect the GOP?

Congress is just a proxy for the voters. The voters are the ones who need to be held accountable, for their basic ignorance of civil life. And they are -- this administration, this economy, these years of jobless "recovery," all are the ways in which an uneducated, ignorant democratic electorate reaps what it sows.

I'm afraid that regardless of your ideology, so long as we live in a society where Oprah Winfrey is a viable kingmaker in American politics, or James Dobson for that matter, we're in for a bumpy ride.

7/18/2009 12:49:35 PM

agentlion,

Yah, I agree. Democrats in Congress are totally blameless in the Iraq War because everyone knows only the Executive Branch makes decisions in this country. Thank god we now have an admin of Dems that would never be foolish enough to support such an idiotic effort.


If Bush was stupid enough to advocate an "obviously wrong war", the Dems in congress were not smart enough or strong enough to oppose him. That doesn't really leave me all warm and fuzzy inside for the Democratic Party.

[Edited on July 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2009 1:39:21 PM

i didn't say the Dems were blameless, and I think they should have opposed the war more, but the fact is, the Republicans controlled Congress for the first 6 years of Bush.

What Congress has done since 2006? Blame the Dems. What happened before then? Well, maybe the Dems should have stood up more or filibustered more, but of course we all know what would have happened then - they would have been shouted down as un-American and unpatriotic.

7/18/2009 2:04:38 PM

^ So, it was okay to not oppose *support* a war they knew was a bad idea because opposing it would have been politically inconvienient? What a great cast of characters.

[Edited on July 18, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2009 2:37:25 PM

no, jesus - i'm not recusing the Democrats of any of their cowardly actions in the run-up to the war.

I am saying, though, that you can hardly blame them over their Republican counterparts, who were in the majority and, again, who were eviscerating anyone who didn't agree with every damn thing they or the President said for 3 years after 9/11

[Edited on July 18, 2009 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2009 3:08:10 PM

^ But Avon did not blame them over the Bush admin, he blamed them in addition to the Bush admin.

you said...

Quote :

"the Democratic Congress lowered taxes, started wars, and allowed Wall Street to get punch drunk with greed and "irrational exuberance" in the mid 00's?"

And the answer to at least the Iraq War part is YES.

Hillary/Biden/Edwards et al did not just not oppose the war. They were not silent. They actively supported the war and voted in its favor. Therefore, they deserve at least some blame for what has happened. So the answer to your question, again, is YES.

[Edited on July 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2009 3:31:49 PM

the answer is not "yes", because I said "the Democratic Congress", which it was not. Obviously there were Democrats, and unfortunately, most of them went along with whatever Bush and the majority was saying, but nevertheless, they were not in control.

I said they do deserve blame, and they mostly acted like cowards. However, we can't forget who was at the reins for so many years.

7/18/2009 3:35:12 PM

^ ahaha so you're just framing the question in an irrelevant way. The Democrats did not control either house in 2003. So the answer can never be yes. But that is irrelevant. Being in the minority does not mean you are excluded from votes or anything. And the majority of Democrats in Congress in 2003 *did* vote for the war. That is the actual relevant piece of information.

You can pay lip service about how you dislike what they did all you want, but its pretty obvious you're a party fanboy. The way you framed the question to throw blame off "your" party makes that pretty clear.

But hey. That's all I got to say. You can protest more if you like (no one ever admits they are partisan), but i think its pretty clear where you stand.

7/18/2009 4:30:20 PM

hey, dipshit - it was a rhetorical question, meant to point out a flaw in AVONs statement. Go back and read it again:

joe_schmoe:

Quote :

"thanks, Bush Administration."

AVON:

Quote :

"More like, thanks Bush administration and Democratic congress"

agentlion:

Quote :

"the Democratic Congress lowered taxes, started wars, and allowed Wall Street to get punch drunk with greed and "irrational exuberance" in the mid 00's?"

see what happened there?

joe_schmoe was thanking Bush for the budget problem we have now, which began ballooning during Bush's early years after the tax cuts, the wars, and really exploded due to Wall Street meltdown that was largely caused by Bush's Administration and regulators taking their eye off the ball in 2001-2005 and running up the bubble that burst last year.

Then AVON tried to imply that it was actually the Democratic Congress starting in 2007, plus Bush, that is the cause of all our problems now.

So my question, which was intentionally based on a false premise, was to point out the flaw in AVONs argument and reinforcing joe_schmoe's original point that our problems started a long time before the Dems took control in 2007. They certainly didn't help when they were in the minority, and they sure as hell aren't helping now, but there is no doubt they took a backseat to the recklessness of the 2000-2006 era.

Got it?

7/18/2009 5:00:57 PM

^ haha it still sounds like you're being just another partisan, friend. We had a war in Iraq, tax cuts, etc in 2006 but deficits were not this large.

The reason for the sudden balloning in the deficit is the drop in revenues from the recession, which no one supports, and the sudden rise in spending to help fight the recession (bailouts, stimulus, etc), which the Democratic congress fully supports.

So its hard to say the Democratic congress did not help create the sudden rise in the deficit. I'm guessing you're wanting to argue that the Dems again had no choice but to spend this money because Bush admin is responsible for the entire recession (that mean Bush is always making Dems do what they really don't want to)? haha! Tall order to fill, considering even folks like Paul Krugman blame legislative changes dating at least to the Clinton admin. But fill free to try and make that argument.

Personally, I think the current deficits are pretty well justified, so there is no reason to spread the blame. The deficits are still NOT unprecedented relative to other historical deficits (though projections look scary) and probably necessary considering the current economic situation. So I'm confused about why you care about who to "blame them all". But *shrug* this is getting kinda dull...

i think i will go watch The Hangover. BBL all.

[Edited on July 18, 2009 at 5:49 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2009 5:41:36 PM

^ that's all fine - i can pretty much agree with you.
But you got your panties all in a wad because I used a rhetorical device to argue against AVON's own partisan attack

7/18/2009 6:03:34 PM

[Edited on July 18, 2009 at 7:25 PM. Reason : i should read full posts before responding.]

7/18/2009 7:25:04 PM

haha

one party is better than the other.

If anyone still subscribes to that kind of thinking I don't even know what to say. Neither party has anything but its own interests in mind.

7/18/2009 9:45:59 PM

^
I agree with your overall point, but I'm going to have to stick with the Republican party being the more evil of the two.

7/19/2009 3:47:53 PM

i guess evil means non-socialist agendas

in that case, yes i am evil

7/19/2009 4:39:21 PM

this is funny now

7/19/2009 4:49:29 PM

is it?

7/19/2009 4:50:44 PM

7/19/2009 5:15:48 PM

Quote :

"so how does it feel now that the public, independents, conservative democrats, and most notable journalists are starting to wake up with a ice cold bucket of water on their face and turning on your Christ in office"

its only starting

7/19/2009 5:31:46 PM

Quote :

"I don't know if you've heard--I mean, you were probably drunk--but Obama is the president now."

When I saw this, I felt sure that hooksaw was talking to me, and that I must have posted something in this thread without remembering it.

On careful review, that is not the case.

But, since I'm in this thread and, if not drunk, perhaps a little tipsy, I shall offer commentary, which I'm sure all of you await with bated breath.

If my sources are accurate and my understanding is correct, the deficit proposed for this year is just under 10% of America's GDP. Which is a lot, absolutely. But during WWII we had three years running of deficits over 20%, peaking in 1943 at 30%. And after all that was said and done, the 1950's were a period of widespread prosperity and economic growth (for everybody who wasn't, you know, dark-skinned or anything).

I understand that the situations are not entirely congruent. But there was a depression, we spent a shit-ton of money, and then the depression went away. In that particular instance we spent the aforementioned shit-ton on tanks, planes, and boats, but unless you have an especially compelling argument to the contrary, I don't think that the spending has to go to defense.

Now, all of that being said: I'm not an enormous fan of deficit spending, especially when we already have a vast debt and our credit rating is no longer unassailable. I'm also not convinced that all of this money is being spent as wisely as it could be. But a big deficit, unto itself, does not scare me.

7/19/2009 6:25:04 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-04-30/treasury-s-488-billion-in-borrowing-sets-a-first-quarter-record?

OH WE BACK!!!1!1!!

(almost, we’re getting there)

[Edited on May 1, 2018 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2018 11:25:58 AM