41–50 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama did cut the deficit in half. More than half. At least over the course of his entire presidency, not sure about the first term.
He did, but only after he doubled it his first couple years.
"If you have the right people, like, in the agencies and the various people that do the balancing ... you can cut the numbers by two pennies and three pennies and balance a budget quickly and have a stronger and better country." -Trump "I’m pledging to cut the deficit by half by the end of my first term in office." -Obama "We must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is i…
Obama did cut the deficit in half. More than half. At least over the course of his entire presidency, not sure about the first term.
The deficits even at the end of his second term were larger than the deficit in 2007 and about the same as 2008.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He did, but only after he doubled it his first couple years.
Well, again, in fairness, that was because the global economy had been run into the ground. The situation he stepped into had little to do with him.
This discussion is so twisted with incorrect and downright offensive to proper reasoning rhetoric. Please look up modern monetary theory. Stephanie Kelton explained modern governmental finance very well in a pod cast on Tuesday last week with Chris Hayes. Basically, if the government runs a deficit then there is a surplus somewhere in the economy that otherwise wouldn’t be. The recent trillion dollar tax cuts and lac…
Can someone ELI5 what this means?
The US Government spends more money than it takes in taxes. In order to finance the difference it takes out loans (in many ways just like you might take out a loan to buy something). These loans take the form of government bonds. Various people/organizations buy these bonds and give the US government money. Later on these bonds "mature" and those people get their money back plus some interest. This post is saying tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, again, in fairness, that was because the global economy had been run into the ground. The situation he stepped into had little to do with him.
He did vote in favor of the bank bailout (as a Senator) so the large deficit in 2009 did have a little to do with him.
But that assumes that the global economy had been run into the ground because of the bank bailouts. This is not the case. The situation these leaders were presented with left them with few options.
The time to act with complete freedom of movement would have been before the crash. Once the crash happens, your options are severely restricted.
This discussion is so twisted with incorrect and downright offensive to proper reasoning rhetoric. Please look up modern monetary theory. Stephanie Kelton explained modern governmental finance very well in a pod cast on Tuesday last week with Chris Hayes. Basically, if the government runs a deficit then there is a surplus somewhere in the economy that otherwise wouldn’t be. The recent trillion dollar tax cuts and lac…
For that matter, even Paul Krugman (a great friend of government spending freely) thinks MMT is very wrong.
Am I wrong in thinking that this doesn't bode well for the value of the dollar over time, and will likely cause hyperinflation?
Yes, you are wrong that it will likely cause hyperinflation. Even if the Fed simply monetized that debt (which it won’t do) you might get some inflation, but nothing close to HYPERinflation. What’s more likely, as the article states, is that more investor money will go to the government rather than mortgages or commercial loans, which will slow the economy, drive up interest rates, and potentially cause deflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He did vote in favor of the bank bailout (as a Senator) so the large deficit in 2009 did have a little to do with him.
Yes. But that assumes that the global economy had been run into the ground because of the bank bailouts. This is not the case. The situation these leaders were presented with left them with few options. The time to act with complete freedom of movement would have been before the crash. Once the crash happens, your options are severely restricted.
But the relevant point for this discussion is: that was a one-time event and not a fair comparison with future deficits.
Deficits from later years should be compared to 2008 or 2007, or to 2009's budget without the bank bailouts.
Can someone ELI5 what this means?
The US Government spends more money than it takes in taxes. In order to finance the difference it takes out loans (in many ways just like you might take out a loan to buy something). These loans take the form of government bonds. Various people/organizations buy these bonds and give the US government money. Later on these bonds "mature" and those people get their money back plus some interest. This post is saying tha…
https://www.gurufocus.com/yield_curve.php
Historically this means a recession is coming. The reason is that investors are thinking that other investment options are not good, so they are parking their money in safe bonds.
Anyway, this is good for government dept I guess.
Government dept is held mostly in short term, so the percentage of government spending used to service dept is very quickly tied to interest rates. Things can go bad fast if interest rates go up.