[Bob-san]

The data point for 2009 (second to last) was Obama's first year. As for the data set, less imports presumptively.

[LordPomposity]

lrn2lvlshotnub

[Locutus of Borg]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/

[Dragon]

I can see WWII and the latest economic crisis clearly on that graph. I don't recall what could have caused a drop near 1997, but I'm sure something important happened near that date.

Late-90s economic boom.  Clinton's administration and the Houses at the time made a point of balanced-ish budgets.  Bush screwed that idea, and started the bailout process when the recession came (as a result of Republican de-regulation, I might add) which Obama was forced to continue.  Hence the current rising proportion.

Indeed.
BTW, I forgot to mention that Reagan's attempt to reduce inflation, which is also clearly visible on that chart.

Wtf happened between '08-'09 there?

The latest economic crash, which started a little earlier in America than in Europe.

[mxlm]

Then what was the point? That we should continue doing the same bull**** we've always done because it's easier than balancing a budget? The former through Democratic and Republican administrations has gotten us into this mess and the latter has been done before. Run that budgetary surplus so that we can pay our obligations and improve the strength of our currency. It's not your father's or grandfather world; a lot of **** has changed.

You worry about running a suprlus when times time are good. When there's been a recession and we're in the middle of an incredibly anemic recovery, that's not when you talk about austerity measures, that's when you run a deficit. For Christ's sake, the austerity measures the GOP wants will cause a double dip recession, because hey, one trillion dollars? That's seven percent of our GDP. If you cut the GDP by 7%, guess what happens?

Nothing good.

And if you cut taxes to, theoretically, make up the difference, well, uh, that completely defeats the point of addressing the deficit, so that's stupid too. Unless, of course, the point is the GOP's theologically-driven need to reduce government, in all circumstances, no matter what. Make no mistake, the plan the GOP is forcing through (and, unbelievably, the Democrats are capitulating to) will be enormously harmful to the country.

[Bob-san]

Then what was the point? That we should continue doing the same bull**** we've always done because it's easier than balancing a budget? The former through Democratic and Republican administrations has gotten us into this mess and the latter has been done before. Run that budgetary surplus so that we can pay our obligations and improve the strength of our currency. It's not your father's or grandfather world; a lot of **** has changed.

You worry about running a suprlus when times time are good. When there's been a recession and we're in the middle of an incredibly anemic recovery, that's not when you talk about austerity measures, that's when you run a deficit. For Christ's sake, the austerity measures the GOP wants will cause a double dip recession, because hey, one trillion dollars? That's seven percent of our GDP. If you cut the GDP by 7%, guess what happens?

Nothing good.

And if you cut taxes to, theoretically, make up the difference, well, uh, that completely defeats the point of addressing the deficit, so that's stupid too. Unless, of course, the point is the GOP's theologically-driven need to reduce government, in all circumstances, no matter what. Make no mistake, the plan the GOP is forcing through (and, unbelievably, the Democrats are capitulating to) will be enormously harmful to the country.

Short-term I have no doubt that it will hurt, to take it from news publications, both Wall Street and Main Street. I see a rise in interest rates as a good thing. In many ways, it's a reset button for lending and borrowing. Whereas the WSJ was getting skittish about a 25 basis point increase in interest rates, they also ignored the other side of the equation. If the choice is between double-dip recession and not-actually-represented inflation? I'll take the recession². Economic performance is in large part driven by market expectations. By the expectations of everyone from ourselves, our elected officials, and those at all levels in a business organization. So yes--I worry about balancing the budget when times are tough. Moreso than when times are plentiful. Among other reasons for the slow "recovery" (mainly lost industry), uncertain outlooks are a viscous cycle. To me, it's better to squish indecision with bad news rather than no news.

I want to reduce all government to its bare minimum. But that's just me. The problem is that, generally, Republicans cut taxes and keep entitlement programs while Democrats keep taxes steady and grow entitlement programs. Both are now guilty of increasing the Defense budget and both are also causes of our current position in world politics.

Now the way I was taught, government spending is supposed to have an effect multiplied by the free market economy. If Mr. Obama spends $230,000 to create a new job, there should be about $700,000 in new cash flow. Not new cash, but new trade. That's not happened from what I have read.

[WeatherOp]

Sounds like we have an agreement, that will pass the day before default. Heh, our government is so predictable....

Now that the general public has been scared and thus conditioned, the next few debt ceiling increases will come with minimal resistance.

[Unknown Target]

It seems like it'll go through, though I don't think it's a sure thing yet. All I've heard was that the party leaders from the House, Senate, and the President, have agreed; the actual thing hasn't been passed around yet. We'll see what happens tomorrow. Again, wouldn't be surprised with either outcome.

[WeatherOp]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama announced on Sunday that Democrats and Republicans leaders have reached an agreement to reduce the U.S. deficit and avoid default.
Obama said the agreement will cut about $1 trillion over 10 years.

Wow, good job. Debate and play politics long enough and then pass something that both parties are happy about. Something that does nothing.

[Unknown Target]

You noticed that too, huh? :\ Pennies when dollars are at stake.

[roaddog_665]

I'm old and nostalgic

Fixed that for you.

You are at least 50% correct.

[Sushi]

Sounds like we have an agreement, that will pass the day before default. Heh, our government is so predictable....

Now that the general public has been scared and thus conditioned, the next few debt ceiling increases will come with minimal resistance.

I'm more annoyed at the unnecessary brinksmanship that causes both parties to play it right down to the wire, just so they can evade political responsibility for making compromises ("we HAD to compromise, or the country would have collapsed, I super-double-pinky-swear I wouldn't have compromised otherwise").

That said, the deal looks like it is a reasonable (given the circumstances) compromise, and IMO does at least move us somewhat in the right direction.

[mxlm]

I want to reduce all government to its bare minimum. But that's just me. The problem is that, generally, Republicans cut taxes and keep entitlement programs while Democrats keep taxes steady and grow entitlement programs. Both are now guilty of increasing the Defense budget and both are also causes of our current position in world politics.

A: no, actually, the GOP grows entitlement programs without funding them. In fact, while reducing taxes. Also fights wars without paying for them. Also grows the Federal government enormously. When they're in power. When they're out of power, they throw temper tantrums while they practice their two-pronged religion of rage and self-pity. Oh, and they make the country's economic well-being hostage to their agenda. Awesome.
B: If you want fiscal conservatism, vote Democratic. They actually believe in things like balanced budgets (see Clinton, who was to the left of Obama), they're just not insane enough (sorry, Bob) to make them a priority when the economy is in the ****ter. You'll note most of Obama's deficit is attributable to one-off expenditures, largely in response to the economic crisis and continuing weakness.

I'm more annoyed at the unnecessary brinksmanship that causes both parties to play it right down to the wire, just so they can evade political responsibility for making compromises ("we HAD to compromise, or the country would have collapsed, I super-double-pinky-swear I wouldn't have compromised otherwise").

Can we please dispense with this narrative. When someone takes a hostage (in this case, the world economy), the negotiators do not share the blame for their actions.

[JCDNWarrior]

The deal isn't really a compromise given how much debt we're talking about. How can 1 trillion in 10 years fix the 1.4 quadrillion of total (derivatives included) debt be paid off?

This will only lead to more austerity measures, higher taxes, and lower standards of living - at a very slow pace as incrementalism always does it.

The right direction is completely cutting costs by stopping wars, stopping empire building and cutting government down to size, and use any methods available to support industries and create new jobs in manufacturing, not only service-economy jobs. By producing high quality products for decent competitive prices. From there you can think about the next steps such as immigration and services.

Both parties are part of the same coin in the pocket of top bankers and lobbies, don't expect any positive solutions from them.

EDIT: However, one positive thing is that we have more time to prepare for the imminent economic collapse. Best to use the time well.

[NGTM-1R]

Representative Gabriel Giffords returns to vote on the issue, earning the right to use the party tag "in(D-Arizona)destructible."

[Drogoth]

Representative Gabriel Giffords returns to vote on the issue, earning the right to use the party tag "in(D-Arizona)destructible."

50 Gamerscore

[JCDNWarrior]

Wow, it looks like the Debt Ceiling debate was a smokescreen for the creation of a 'Super-Congress'.
A few minutes ago, the Senate and House passed the creation of this Super Congress. 6 house representatives + 6 congress men + president now seem to take over the entire decision-making, Congress unable to filibuster or block bills, only 'yes' or 'no' without real substance.

The power of the purse, among other things still controlled by Congress are passed to the President, who has veto-power over the 12 super-congressmen.

Apparently, according to Harry Reid for instance, the power of the Super Congress will be unlimited. No more 51% vote or 66% vote needed to block bills, they can just perform the bill.

A developing story, I'm not too sure just yet what to think of it. It's clearly unconstitutional though, it seems illegal and quite the power grab, but what do others think?

[Unknown Target]

Saw it before, didn't mention it because there wasn't a lot of detail and I wasn't sure of it, but yea from what I gathered it's pretty much what you said. :\
Can you give a link so I can pass it around to show people, please?

[JCDNWarrior]

There's lots of stories from all sides of the spectrum as far as I know, I'll list a few I saw on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91QEIenOeY0&feature=player_embedded

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html?ref=email_share

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/31/super-congress-debt-ceiling-deficit-deal_n_914272.html

http://gunowners.org/a08012011.htm

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2154-if-the-republic-had-not-died-a-long-time-ago-this-would-indeed-be-the-death-of-the-republic-reprise.html

Many other sources and stories, it's a big one. See if you can find anything of above 5 that works, hope it helps to get a good source to share. Curious to see what this will actually mean for the future.

[Luis Dias]

It's inevitable. Fact is, the current status quo of power was simply incapable of coping with the challenges. Then, the **** hit the fan and they showed how they were even *more* incapable of dealing with the challenges. Of course something like this would eventually happen, it's like trying to stop the 2 law of thermodynamics, it's impossible.

Still it's quite regrettable.