ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/17/2018 07:57 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  1.504 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/24/2009 12:16 AM ID: 80351 Permalink   

$2 Trillion Added to US Deficit

 

The Obama administration is adding two trillion dollars to the 10-year deficit forecast, making it nine trillion dollars. The 2010 to 2019 budget, which comes out next week, will be larger than the original forecast of 7.1 trillion dollars.

The new figures will most likely bring strong political debate over the US debt and will fuel renewed opposition over Obama’s plan for health care reform and global warming.

The deficit for 2009 will be about 11.2 percent of the GDP, and the new budget will be about 3.65 trillion dollars.

 
  Source: rawstory.com  
    WebReporter: willyshawker Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  28 Comments
  
  well  
 
more of the same. While Bush was a problem this is no longer him this is Obama's game now.

The same as all of them serving corporate interest since November 22nd 1962
 
  by: willyshawker     08/24/2009 12:25 AM     
  And yet  
 
The only president who has been beaten over the head for running a deficit has been Obama. How come Bush and Reagan didn't get tea parties?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2009 12:43 AM     
  Ben  
 
They should have. Like I said supporting corporate interest since 1962 actually before than.

 
  by: willyshawker     08/24/2009 12:58 AM     
  If Bush...  
 
had an unwelcome tea party around his castle, they would have been a few more water board parties going on to. So I guess these people feel they have to take it all out on him now, instead of trying to get their worries across to the people concerned and sorting this dire situation out, this is making things a lot worse.

The day people work out it is better to try and work with he tools you have left, instead of smashing up the work shop up, they will get no where.
 
  by: captainJane     08/24/2009 01:21 AM     
  I realize this is a moot point...  
 
if the facts hold water, but is anyone else slightly wary of a story from a French newspaper whose only story source is anonymous?
 
  by: zirschky     08/24/2009 01:30 AM     
  I am betting China will not be very happy  
 
After all, Geithner and Clinton have had to pander to the Chinese to keep buying our debt and from the info that was coming out of Beijing, they were very unhappy with the spending habits of the US.

I can only assume this will make them even more so unhappy. These steps may be the eventual lead up to a Chinese boycott of American debt. If and when that happens, the US will be able to say hello to the Soviet Union as it will be sitting in the same scrap heap of historical wreckage.
 
  by: slavefortheman     08/24/2009 04:04 AM     
  Seriously Ben...  
 
Obama is the "only" president who's been called out for running a deficit? That's all you got??

Clearly you're playing the right vs. left recent memory game again.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     08/24/2009 06:42 AM     
  @BB  
 
Yeah, that's pretty much all I've got. Since the federal deficit has never made any difference whatsoever in my life, I guess I've never really worried about it.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2009 07:26 AM     
  How about the other 23.7 trillion  
 
missing from the federal reserve?
 
  by: DoubleTake   08/24/2009 09:09 AM     
  dbl take  
 
23.7 trillion missing? since there is nothing backing our money, there is nothing missing. they print what they need. if there is nothing of value there, there is nothing missing. simple as that. it really amounts to how much is paper worth?
 
  by: shannon853   08/24/2009 02:35 PM     
  China New World Leader !!!  
 
Get used to it, as a headline, because at the moment, nearly all of America is actually owed to them, if the Americans were ever to face bankruptcy as a nation, the Chinese would pick up all the pieces.

They must love it, when their future is actually going to be growth all the way, paid for by the good old USA.

Globalisation and the American consumer have caused all of this, Americans consume a huge part of world resources and nowadays that means dollars go to China, for everything from cabbage patch kids, to t.v.'s, now we can actually see America declining, as we speak, ar least when all American industry is closed, the level of pollution will drop seriously.

America is now past it's "best before" date, and heading for it's "sell by" date....

 
  by: Active1   08/24/2009 03:56 PM     
  Absolutely correct  
 
As long as the government official think that it's ok to gobble up more and more of the private sector, this decline will continue. It's happened in every country where the government has effectively seized control of big businesses, banks, etc. After that happens, it's only a matter of time.

This country is supposed to be a 'of the people, by the people, for the people." Now, it only serves those in power. And the more power they gain, the easier it is for them to gain more power.

GM should have been allowed to fail. Instead, the government invested a ton of its citizens' money in a failing corporation. How is it right for the government to be in a risky venture and the financiers? They effective took my money, and the money of my children, and I sincerely doubt that we will ever see a dime of it back. Instead, they are going to start making these "green" cars that only about 1 in 20 people want, and so they're setting GM up for failure again.

As much as I hated Bush as a president, at least he never proposed trillions upon trillions of debt that most likely never will be paid off.

And just as a theory to put out there: is it possible that Dubbya saw this coming, and used the war to prop up the economy temporarily? Everyone knows that war is extremely good for the economy, even though nobody will admit that it's the reason they are going.

The spending and government control need to stop here and now. I, for one, value this country, and the freedoms that we have here. I have never once asked the government to be my mommy, although, I guess that's a comforting thought for some people. Maybe those people should read up on countries where the government does play the part of wet-nurse, before they start asking for it here.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   08/24/2009 07:27 PM     
  @shannon853  
 
You answered your own question there. Since there is nothing backing the currency anymore, like gold and silver, the new money is printed on the debt of the existing currency and backed by the Gross Domestic Product. That means the money in your pocket becomes worth less, called inflation. And considering the massive amount of money taken, the Gross Domestic Product cannot back it up, so you can expect to see MASSIVE inflation.
 
  by: DoubleTake   08/24/2009 08:06 PM     
  @tiu  
 
On what planet does the government helping out a few companies here and there equate to "gobbling up more and more of the private sector"?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2009 08:46 PM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
 
"helping out a few companies here and there"

Not sure how you equate your statement to literally the biggest US government involvement in the private sector since the Great Depression. Here is the definition of what Bush and Obama have created:

Fascism: (wiki) Establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").

Just because a democrat is behind the wheels of power does not make it right. I personally like the idea of public healthcare and several things Obama is for. I however cannot stand for his aligning with Bush era policies such as the war(s) and also many of his other foreign policies which are literally too numerous to list out here. Add to this his and Bush's fascist policies of integrating government into business. Strong arming labor out of the way and literally taking control of many corporations.

This list goes on and on. Instead of dismantling Bush's policies, in many cases he has added onto them! There is such a double standard placed onto politicians by some people. I find it sickening how some people who claimed to be against the Iraq war under Bush and all his other policies are now gladly giving their support to the exact same policies under Obama.

The devil puts on a different mask and what was once a lie is now the gospel...
 
  by: slavefortheman     08/24/2009 09:08 PM     
  Tea Parties  
 
I remember when they were in the early planning stages on a Ron Paul discussion forum somewhere. They were originally about government spending and had nothing to do with Obama. If my memory serves me, much of the sentiment around the tea parties was anti-Bush (probably because he was president at the time.) Unfortunately, Fox News heard about them, promoted them, and hoards of brain-dead racists showed up instead of the original people. I was all about the tea parties at first, but when I heard that Fox was promoting them, I lost interest. I really wasn't surprised when I drove past a bunch of idiots holding birther signs near my house.
 
  by: erasedgod   08/24/2009 09:15 PM     
  three possible outcomes: [game theory-esque]  
 
Scenario 1) we survive this (most likely)
Scenario 2) We fail: Hyper Inflation
Scenario 3) We fail: Amero introduced

Scenario 1
If we survive this, our deficit will have increased to the level our taxes will be greatly increased to repay it.

Scenario 2
Inflation a-la Zimbabwe and the Gold Standard will kick in. Guess who's got all the gold .. not you.

Scenario 3
Instead of inflation, they get the desparate public to support them into creating the North American Union. The Amero comes in. The American people is reassured that they will keep their 'sovereignty', but the Constitution becomes redundant when the NAU laws override them.
 
  by: redstain   08/24/2009 09:44 PM     
  Scenario 4  
 
100,000,000 Americans pack up and move to other countries.

If this actually happens (unlikely), how do you think it would impact the people remaining in the USA, and the rest of the world?
 
  by: White Albino   08/25/2009 12:42 AM     
  lol  
 
Slave do you ever get tired of repeating yourself for years on end? The American consumer is worth $17 trillion and we got the most superior fighting force on the planet. We are not going anywhere.
 
  by: steme   08/25/2009 01:12 AM     
  Applause for slave....  
 
very well spoken, sir.

And, @steme: Not that I can speak for slave but I would think that, of course he gets tired of repeating himself. However, since the point he is trying to convey is still completely lost on so many people, it needs to be repeated. The mathematics of how our monetary system has been manipulated didn't change when Bush left and Obama arrived. Another thing that didn't change is who is in control of our monetary system.

You can be as ignorantly patriotic as you like but it will not change the consequences of our actions as a country.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     08/25/2009 01:56 AM     
  ...  
 

Obongo's approval rating is at what 44%? I expect it to get even worse now.
 
  by: jakethemuss   08/25/2009 03:51 AM     
  @jake  
 
What you have heard about Obama's approval rating is really inconsequential. The largest polls providing that data only survey something on the order of a hundredth or less of one percentile of our country's populace.

If Obama's approval rating was reported as 99% I wouldn't get behind his ideas. Not because I don't like him.. because his ideas won't work in the long term.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     08/25/2009 04:33 AM     
  ben you forget  
 
that you and every other democrat cried and screamed everytime bush pushed the deficit by a dollar.

remember? saying how bush was bankrupting our childrens futures?

now its oh so convenient for you to forget.
 
  by: cray0la     08/26/2009 10:15 AM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
One of my friends sent me this one, and I think it's appropriate here. Shows how easily people can turn hypocritical.

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to Cinco de Cuatro in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plans holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 5 months — so you’ll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   08/26/2009 01:32 PM     
  Thanks for this one  
 
Now the loony tunes who stick up for Obama and everything he does or fails to do, can pick on you instead, of avoiding the question I want them to answer
 
  by: Active1   08/26/2009 04:10 PM     
  Yeehaw  
 
n/t
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   08/26/2009 04:17 PM     
  By the WAY  
 
Did any one notice in the debate where he accused McCain of being a Bush supporter, ( when he could not remember whether he had voted with Bush, on an issue, or not ), When in fact, he had opposed Bush far more often than Obama, who had voted nearly every time, in favour of Bush in his whole career !

In fact, McCain had voted aginst Bush on the issue in question, and it was not how he had voted that was the problem, but he could not remember how Bush had, so he could not say whether they were in agreement.

In the record, Obama voted with Bush on all, but 3 occassions in his whole history, in politics, just what sort of Democrat is Obama, I wonder ?
 
  by: Active1   08/26/2009 04:18 PM     
  @Active1  
 
He's not a Democrat. He's a socialist. There's a small but important difference in philosophy between the two parties. Maybe one of the Democrats here could explain it in more detail.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   08/26/2009 04:23 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com