PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Budget Likely to Make Big Deficit Tremendous


Mad Tony
26-02-09, 16:54
Notwithstanding the worst recession in decades, hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout funds already spent and a startling national deficit, President Barack Obama will propose a budget Thursday that nevertheless emphasizes the need for an immediate and costly reform of the nation’s health-care system.

The budget, which must be approved by the beginning of the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, predicts a $1.75 trillion deficit, according to administration officials who have briefed reporters on the document.
Obama is scheduled to unveil the budget Thursday.

The deficit represents 12.3% of U.S. gross domestic product. Economists have said it’s the largest percentage since World War II, when the country ran a shortfall of 21.5% of GDP.
The president has argued that huge deficits are a necessary evil as the country attempts to dig itself out of the worst recession in decades. Restraint will come later, he said.
“While we must add to our deficits in the short term to provide immediate relief to families and get our economy moving, it is only by restoring fiscal discipline that we can produce sustained growth and shared prosperity,” Obama said at the White House earlier today.

Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics for Moody’s Economy.com, said the global financial crisis that has brought Wall Street to its knees, devastated the U.S. housing market and left millions unemployed likely warrants a deficit of historic proportions.
“If ever there was a time, now is that time,” said Faucher. “This is biggest deficit since World War II, but on the other hand we’re facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

Congress must approve the budget, and a healthy debate is expected – not least over Obama’s call for a health-care overhaul.
The document to be released today provides the broad outlines of a more detailed one to be released in April.
The soaring deficit figure sent U.S. Treasury bond prices lower and yields up to three week highs on Thursday.

Gold prices slid to their lowest level in more than a week after testing all-time highs over $1,000 an ounce earlier this month. Stock prices rose.
Federal spending is skyrocketing as officials try to jolt the recession-hit economy with public-works spending and tax cuts and bail out the troubled financial industry.
The deficit number reinforced concerns the government will need to sell record amounts of debt to pay for programs aimed at jump starting the economy.

Obama, who took office on Jan. 20, has pledged to slash the deficit he inherited from former Republican President George W. Bush in coming years, bringing it down to $533 billion, or 3% of GDP by 2013, or the end of his first term.
Higher taxes on wealthier Americans and a planned drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq are expected to help rein in the shortfall.
The budget projects the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars totaling just over $140 billion this year and $130 billion in the 2010 fiscal year. But annual costs will drop after that to $50 billion annually.
Spending elsewhere will increase in conjunction with the new president’s priorities and to keep the nation’s banks afloat, if necessary.
Meanwhile, Obama has signaled he has no intention of delaying his campaign promise of expanding health care to the 46 million people who are uninsured in the United States.

The budget includes a 10-year, $634 billion reserve fund to help pay for the president’ proposed health-care reforms.
The U.S. has experienced at least 14 months of recession so far, triggered by a financial crisis that has spread across the world. Stock prices have fallen nearly 50% from their highs of a year and a half ago.
Faucher said the 2009 budget is a product of this difficult period.
Where he’s concerned, he said, is whether the Administration and Congress can agree to a long-term approach that reduces the deficit once the hard times are over.

“If we’re going to be serious about that it will require some hard choices: higher taxes and spending cuts. That’s how deficits are cut. Those are politically difficult choices, and the question is will the politicians be willing to make those hard choices?” said Faucher.

Source: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/obama-set-unveil-budget-deficit-soars/

spikejones
26-02-09, 17:12
didn't read it ... sorry.

I listened to the speech on TV, and I think that he's got some good plans with the budget that will help the economy - mainly the one I am most proud of is him undercutting all these production companies' incentive to go overseas for labor - by rescinding the tax cuts for doing so. In fact, I wish he would levy higher taxes against them. That should be incentive enough to bring those jobs back home to America. I hate this cocky attitude of the corporate whore mongers who think they are god's gift to America, and we should appease them or else they will leave.

Tidus
26-02-09, 17:15
didn't read it ... sorry.

I listened to the speech on TV, and I think that he's got some good plans with the budget that will help the economy - mainly the one I am most proud of is him undercutting all these production companies' incentive to go overseas for labor - by rescinding the tax cuts for doing so. In fact, I wish he would levy higher taxes against them. That should be incentive enough to bring those jobs back home to America. I hate this cocky attitude of the corporate whore mongers who think they are god's gift to America, and we should appease them or else they will leave.

Exactly. :tmb:

Catapharact
26-02-09, 17:30
While I agree that the bailout proposal was a lame idea, and government intervention in the private sector is just overtly ludicrious (apart from law enforcement which is a totally different discussion,) listening to Fox News for Business advice is about as practical as wearing a Jacket that says Jack Daniels on it and protesting against legal distribution of Alcohol.

Fallen.Angel
26-02-09, 17:35
Exactly. :tmb:
Double agreed. Not sure on what else to say. But I have faith in Obama.

spikejones
26-02-09, 17:41
While I agree that the bailout proposal was a lame idea, and government intervention in the private sector is just overtly ludicrious (apart from law enforcement which is a totally different discussion,) listening to Fox News for Business advice is about as practical as wearing a Jacket that says Jack Daniels on it and protesting against legal distribution of Alcohol.
aren't all networks biased in some manner or other? Besides, they are only reporting things here - no one should form a "business plan" based on some biased reporting made by any media. On top of that... Obama didn't base this off of Fox News, but rather the other way around. ;) (not to imply that you inferred that, just stating a fact) Obama has his reasons for doing such, and has financial advisers at his side. It would be fool hardy to follow along the proven fallible methods of Bush.

Mad Tony
26-02-09, 17:44
While I agree that the bailout proposal was a lame idea, and government intervention in the private sector is just overtly ludicrious (apart from law enforcement which is a totally different discussion,) listening to Fox News for Business advice is about as practical as wearing a Jacket that says Jack Daniels on it and protesting against legal distribution of Alcohol.For those of you who think FOX are somehow anymore biased than all of the other major news outlets:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/budget/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7910335.stm

Catapharact
26-02-09, 17:52
aren't all networks biased in some manner or other? Besides, they are only reporting things here - no one should form a "business plan" based on some biased reporting made by any media.

In some form yes but Fox News has a reputation of slating itself way too far offcourse. If people usually find CNN or BBC unconventionally biased then they should definately stay away from Fox News.

The problem with media in general is that it overhypes the given slow down rates with fear mongering. The recession and growth period of given economies are a cyclic event. You can only soften the blow of an impending recession a bit but you can never totally stop it. Interjection of mamoth sized bail out plans would only increase the deficit rate and in the long run, the debt.

Obama is hoping that this massive influx of investments in key sectors will help boost their given chances and a turn around or better yet... An innovation. However, how many times has the U.S. auto sector been bailed out? Only to turn around and fall under hard times again? The reason? They really have done little interms of change. They throw in a hybrid here and new crossover there but overall interms of innovation, its only when the influence of an outside management team which GM aquired through takeovers that things really started to change (i.e. Chrystler.)

The U.S. Auto sector needs to learn its lesson the hard way in order to change itself.

For those of you who think FOX are somehow anymore biased than all of the other major news outlets:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/budget/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7910335.stm

And notice the difference.

interstellardave
26-02-09, 17:52
Common sense says more spending = higher deficit. If it doesn't work in my household how does it work for the government? Because everyone loves Obama? No, that's not a good reason...

They should be cutting the fat in D.C., that's what they should be doing.

Mr.Burns
26-02-09, 18:10
For those looking for yet another perspective try...

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE51O6JA20090226)

voltz
27-02-09, 00:26
From what I hear of the rich not being spared, I could imagine they'll be scrambling through donations in order to make that tax cut.

spikejones
27-02-09, 01:14
For those looking for yet another perspective try...

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE51O6JA20090226)
my perspective comes from watching what bit of it I did while it was live - and not some biased report. however, my own opinions being reported here are biased from my own perspective :p

Cat... about the auto bailout - I can't honestly tell you how many times it has been, it is not overly often I pay attention to that stuff. However, I am inclined to say that they are sending the "bailout checks" to the wrong places. It should not be going to the businesses so they can put it into more product that will never be bought by consumers who don't exist or simply don't have the monetary funds to afford it. The "bailout checks" should rather be getting sent to the people who will in turn be able to buy the current stock of products up - this will produce more income for the businesses, and in turn HOPEFULLY provide some extra dough to open more positions up.

It has been relayed to me - and I cannot quote a source, nor whether it will happen or not - that if the bailout money did go to the people - it would be about 45,000 per household. And that my friends is enough to buy a whole car outright, or do plenty of other stuff, put it in the bank why not. Didn't the banks need a bailout of their own?

Hell - who's to say that the "bailout money" isn't going to just end up in Henry Ford's wallet?

Mr.Burns
27-02-09, 01:26
All news sources are biased. I find Reuters to be a bit less biased than CNN or Fox news. Fyi, I watched the speech as well :p

wantafanta
27-02-09, 01:45
I have to chuckle any time I read about a conservative pretending to actually care about the budget deficit all of a sudden. Where have you guys been the past 8 years?

Second of all, calling this the "Obama budget" is like blaming the Emergency Room for the auto accident. It's going to cost money to clean up this mess. There's no way around it. The U.S. economy is about to slide off a cliff - and take the rest of the world with it. I lost $80,000 in the last 6 months. I'm sick about it and it kept me up nights.

And last, Obama is including the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in this budget. Something the Bush administration refused to do. Bush kept the war costs in separate books, totally smoke-and-mirrors accounting. It would be like me bringing home a report card for my parents to sign, only I kept all the 'F's on a separate piece of paper in my back pocket.

spikejones
27-02-09, 01:53
so are you saying that a budget which accounts for more stuff is a bad thing? I disagree... you have to be able to budget for the known as well as the unknown - the beautiful and ugly alike, lest you find yourself in a financial crises.

why we call it the Obama budget? well.. its most likely not all his own ideas, true. as I mentioned before, he has his financial advisers to help out with those matters. But its Obama's administration, and the budget they came up with - so by proxy it is his.

the past 8 years... doped up, drunk, in and out of jail and prison - making use of the tax dollars I spent when I was working:o (not all of them though - only the first half)

wantafanta
27-02-09, 02:03
You gotta remember, Bush went 6 years withhout vetoing a single spending bill - until the democrats took over congress in '06. It was Bush who signed Medicare part D into law which prohibits my government from negotiating lower drug prices with the drug companies, essentially sticking it to the taxpayer to make the drug companies rich. And why shouldn't it? After all - the drug companies wrote the bill!

It was Bush who said the Iraq war would cost 54 billion $$ - now it's pushing a trillion. They said Iraq oil revenues would pay for it. BWAHAHAHAHA!

So my point is, yes, this is Obama's budget technically, but the mess is Bush's doing. In the words of Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter."

spikejones
27-02-09, 02:25
and that is exactly what Obama is stuck trying to fix... the mess left over by Bush.

I'm still not sure if you are for or against this though? As for deficits... hell its all theoretical money as far as I know. Why the money has to be backed by gold in order to have value is beyond me.. but I guess that is the international trading currency? Any how, as far as taxes go... what good is a government that does not tax its citizens? Money must be raised somehow for all the different causes that everyone wants. Need a road fixed? taxes have to be levied.. want better educational supplies? taxes... medicare? taxes... and who better to raise the most tax dollars off of than the wealthy? you get more bang that way without hurting more people, and the wealthy still stay wealthy.

maybe one day we can change from "the poor get poorer and the rich get richer" to a better way with equal taxing percents across the board and no loop holes.

silver_wolf
27-02-09, 02:37
I have to chuckle any time I read about a conservative pretending to actually care about the budget deficit all of a sudden. Where have you guys been the past 8 years?

Second of all, calling this the "Obama budget" is like blaming the Emergency Room for the auto accident. It's going to cost money to clean up this mess. There's no way around it. The U.S. economy is about to slide off a cliff - and take the rest of the world with it. I lost $80,000 in the last 6 months. I'm sick about it and it kept me up nights.

And last, Obama is including the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in this budget. Something the Bush administration refused to do. Bush kept the war costs in separate books, totally smoke-and-mirrors accounting. It would be like me bringing home a report card for my parents to sign, only I kept all the 'F's on a separate piece of paper in my back pocket.
:tmb:

Melonie Tomb Raider
27-02-09, 02:59
What we're getting now we'll have to pay for later. :p

interstellardave
27-02-09, 03:24
If I was president I'd say to whomever holds out debt "you'll get paid interest on the debt for 5 more years, and that's it. After 5 years no more payments on the debt and, in fact, the debt will be dissolved--so get ready." With a stroke of a pen I'd get rid of the debt and start fresh.

Why? Well, because us and our children and our childrens' children shouldn't be enslaved to the debt. And no-one in their right mind can believe that anything less than that would ever really pay off the debt--or even make a dent in it. Those who own the debt are never really going to get that money anyway--but they would be happy to live off the interest on it. But we can't afford to pay that either.

Start fresh, start at zero. Don't spend more than we bring in--and try to spend what we bring in via taxes WISELY. That's the way to go.

Oh, and if dissolving the debt ****es off someone who wants to pick a fight over it they can either bring it on or enter a new, healthier trading arrangement with us.

That's my America!

patriots88888
27-02-09, 03:47
If I was president I'd say to whomever holds out debt "you'll get paid interest on the debt for 5 more years, and that's it. After 5 years no more payments on the debt and, in fact, the debt will be dissolved--so get ready." With a stroke of a pen I'd get rid of the debt and start fresh.

Why? Well, because us and our children and our childrens' children shouldn't be enslaved to the debt. And no-one in their right mind can believe that anything less than that would ever really pay off the debt--or even make a dent in it. Those who own the debt are never really going to get that money anyway--but they would be happy to live off the interest on it. But we can't afford to pay that either.

Start fresh, start at zero. Don't spend more than we bring in--and try to spend what we bring in via taxes WISELY. That's the way to go.

Oh, and if dissolving the debt ****es off someone who wants to pick a fight over it they can either bring it on or enter a new, healthier trading arrangement with us.

That's my America!

Glad I don't live in "your" America! Would you honestly feel the same way if the situation were reversed?

Of course the debt will never be fully repaid, but just simply absolving it with a "stroke of the pen" as you put it is not the way to go! There's much more at stake here than just money! Do a little research on past wars and you'll see what I mean! And what foreign countries in their right mind would want to do any business with America with an attitude and outlook like that?

amiro1989
27-02-09, 04:06
What we're getting now we'll have to pay for later. :p

That should have been Bush's administration motto.

Dixie
27-02-09, 05:20
Given that we're technically in debt to ourselves, we will theoretically never have to pay it back. However, large debts are never good for an economy. Like now for instance. Obviously the new budget will push us further into debt, but adding on $600-something billion for a health care plan that won't go into effect for several years (assuming it goes through at all....) is just plain stupid. Add in the new tax ****, and it's obvious this guy wants EVERYONE to be poor.


Ah well, what more can you expect from a now-socialist government?

Mad Tony
27-02-09, 06:04
I'm pretty amazed really that quite a few people here seem to be all ok with this. If it was a Republican everyone would be up in arms about it. You can't spend your way out of a recession, and that's exactly what Obama is trying to do.

interstellardave
27-02-09, 11:15
Glad I don't live in "your" America! Would you honestly feel the same way if the situation were reversed?

Of course the debt will never be fully repaid, but just simply absolving it with a "stroke of the pen" as you put it is not the way to go! There's much more at stake here than just money! Do a little research on past wars and you'll see what I mean! And what foreign countries in their right mind would want to do any business with America with an attitude and outlook like that?

You and I are butting heads these days, huh? :p

This debt will never be repaid as it is. All it will do is forever enslave the American people... and that's not a good thing. It is what crushes our economy--just like massive debts are doing to some other countries around the world. Enslavement to the International Bankers isn't my view of the future.

If I owed you a million dollars and you knew I couldn't pay it back you are essentially not losing anything more if we just admit to that fact, are we? That money has been spent a long time ago... and you would have, by necessity, moved on. You're not sitting and waiting for something that you know isn't coming.

It essentially means declaring bankruptcy... and the US is essentially bankrupt (unless taxes are raised even more), so why not admit to it? Businesses and individuals survive bankruptcy every day... a nation stands an even better chance to do so because it possesses tremendous natural assets.

And I think people would still deal with the US simply because we have things to offer them--only this time our dealings would be above board the whole way. No more deficit spending, no more exorbitant borrowing from foreign sources. My America would strive to be as self-sufficient as possible. That's where our strength would be. It's where our strength used to come from.

People think Obama is looking at the economy honestly? No, I am.

Of course I'd love to be proven wrong... if Obama can double our debt in his first 6 months of office and then somehow cut our debt in half (hopefully he means our current debt, not current debt plus his additions to it) by the end of his term then I'd be the first to stand up and applaud in amazement. No-one should hold their breath on that though.

spikejones
27-02-09, 13:59
If I was president I'd say to whomever holds out debt "you'll get paid interest on the debt for 5 more years, and that's it. After 5 years no more payments on the debt and, in fact, the debt will be dissolved--so get ready." With a stroke of a pen I'd get rid of the debt and start fresh.

Why? Well, because us and our children and our childrens' children shouldn't be enslaved to the debt. And no-one in their right mind can believe that anything less than that would ever really pay off the debt--or even make a dent in it. Those who own the debt are never really going to get that money anyway--but they would be happy to live off the interest on it. But we can't afford to pay that either.

Start fresh, start at zero. Don't spend more than we bring in--and try to spend what we bring in via taxes WISELY. That's the way to go.

Oh, and if dissolving the debt ****es off someone who wants to pick a fight over it they can either bring it on or enter a new, healthier trading arrangement with us.

That's my America!
somehow when I read this, I thought that you were talking about the debt owed by people within the country, to the credit companies and banks for loans they have taken out or purchases made on credit. And some will argue that the economy is the way that it is today because people aren't making those big purchases on credit and loans anymore. But you have to look at it like this: if the President himself declares that debts do not need to be paid off in full, then he is in essence sending a message to the citizens of the United States that they do not have to pay of their credit cards or bank loans - and this will be bad for the economy. It is lost revenue and therefore lost tax money.

of course, in my own personal views - I never ever lend money unless I can afford not to have it paid back to me. Elsewise, if I DO lend money when I can't really afford to be doing so, and the money is not returned - I just hurt myself by trying to be nice to other people. Its not a smart move.

interstellardave
27-02-09, 15:20
Getting rid of the federal debt would allow the government to lower taxes which would allow people to pay their personal debts off. Don't forget the Federal Deficit is OUR deficit. We are the ones who would have to pay that monstrosity off... so we would be saved, not a handful of politicians.

amiro1989
27-02-09, 15:28
I'm pretty amazed really that quite a few people here seem to be all ok with this. If it was a Republican everyone would be up in arms about it. You can't spend your way out of a recession, and that's exactly what Obama is trying to do.

Republicans would never try to create jobs through environment, first of all. They would never raise the taxes for rich people. They would never try to implement a Universal Health Care system. They would never try to find a new ecological energy (they'd stick with oil).

You can't even compare this situation to any Republican leader ever.

Mad Tony
27-02-09, 16:14
Republicans would never try to create jobs through environment, first of all. They would never raise the taxes for rich people. They would never try to implement a Universal Health Care system. They would never try to find a new ecological energy (they'd stick with oil).

You can't even compare this situation to any Republican leader ever.Nice bit of speculation there. The only one you're probably right about is universal health care. Lower taxes and lower government spending is the way to go, unfortunately the great Obama is doing the exact opposite of the latter, meaning taxes will also have to rise a lot in the future.

But my question still stands, why does that make any difference? Why is it ok for a Democrat to plunge America into further debt with ridiculously high government spending but not a Republican?

spikejones
27-02-09, 20:24
because a republican wouldn't do that :confused:

each political party has its ways of doing things and its different views on taxes and blah blah blah..... It may just be that you are looking at the democratic sympathizers' responses, and are a republican yourself?

I don't profess to know all the workings of the financial plan, but if the man says that it accounts for everything (or at least more than previously) THAT is where the higher deficit is "magically appearing" from. Hell, the man is being honest in saying "Look America! this is how much money we are REALLY spending at this current rate."

and what is so wrong with taxes? if you don't like them - move to another country that doesn't tax its citizens, see how good things are there.

EmeraldFields
28-02-09, 03:05
The way we got of the Great Depression was by spending money, was it not?

amiro1989
28-02-09, 03:05
Nice bit of speculation there. The only one you're probably right about is universal health care. Lower taxes and lower government spending is the way to go, unfortunately the great Obama is doing the exact opposite of the latter, meaning taxes will also have to rise a lot in the future.

But my question still stands, why does that make any difference? Why is it ok for a Democrat to plunge America into further debt with ridiculously high government spending but not a Republican?

You seem to forget that we arrived here, because of the last administration.

Obama is taking a decision, cuz he thinks it's the best one he can take. I don't know if it's a good one or a bad one, but if more than half of the United States of America voted for him, that means they believe in him. We shall see in the next 4 years if it was a good decision or a bad one.

spikejones
28-02-09, 03:11
this is a valid point amiro. Bush won the electoral votes in order to win his presidency as well - and see how it turned out? only time will really tell how things will work out. But at least Obama is not out there saying "the economy will be right back on track next month". What he's saying so far (of what I have heard anyhow) sounds pretty realistic. But like you said... only time will tell.

however - I may not go so far as to say that "half the united states" voted for him. the system has proven before that popular vote doesn't necessarily translate to electoral vote.

amiro1989
28-02-09, 03:14
this is a valid point amiro. Bush won the electoral votes in order to win his presidency as well - and see how it turned out? only time will really tell how things will work out. But at least Obama is not out there saying "the economy will be right back on track next month". What he's saying so far (of what I have heard anyhow) sounds pretty realistic. But like you said... only time will tell.

however - I may not go so far as to say that "half the united states" voted for him. the system has proven before that popular vote doesn't necessarily translate to electoral vote.

Yeah, I guess so. :ton:

patriots88888
28-02-09, 03:48
I don't know if it's a good one or a bad one, but if more than half of the United States of America voted for him, that means they believe in him. We shall see in the next 4 years if it was a good decision or a bad one.

this is a valid point amiro. Bush won the electoral votes in order to win his presidency as well - and see how it turned out? only time will really tell how things will work out. But at least Obama is not out there saying "the economy will be right back on track next month". What he's saying so far (of what I have heard anyhow) sounds pretty realistic. But like you said... only time will tell.

however - I may not go so far as to say that "half the united states" voted for him. the system has proven before that popular vote doesn't necessarily translate to electoral vote.

It really doesn't matter how many voted for Obama in respect to his decisions being "right" or "wrong", or "good" or "bad". The reason(s) why they did however is more of a valid point in regards to the thread topic. Many Republican voters, including myself, lost faith in the Republican party and the direction in which it, and more importantly, this country was going. More than anything else, they were tired of the status quo and wanted a change. As both of you have already stated, we shall have to wait and see what Obama's philosophical approach on the economy brings about.

A bit off topic, but not completely.

Kittypower
28-02-09, 05:04
Was there any other way to fix the economy without creating making the deficit larger.

Trinity34
02-03-09, 01:12
The way we got of the Great Depression was by spending money, was it not?

WWII got us out of the depression. What we need is another war so we can sell some more guns... maybe Russia might help us out. :p

EDIT: Hey I just thought of something... what if a hacker hacked into the US government reserve or bank or whatever and gave the government one trillion dollars? Wouldn't that solve everything? Someone could just say it was an oversight. Do you think someone would actually sit there and count out one trillion dollars to see if the government actually had it? Who does that anymore? Its all just a bunch of numbers floating around on the internet. :)

EmeraldFields
02-03-09, 01:38
WWII got us out of the depression. What we need is another war so we can sell some more guns... maybe Russia might help us out. :p


Heehee, problem solved!:D

Benguitar
02-03-09, 01:42
I don't have much faith in him... I think it is too early to tell weather or not he is doing a good job.

amiro1989
02-03-09, 01:47
WWII got us out of the depression. What we need is another war so we can sell some more guns... maybe Russia might help us out. :p

Hope you're joking. :)

Mr.Burns
02-03-09, 01:56
Trin's right. War has traditionally been good for national economies. Unlike during WWII when the US war machine was not as well prepared, currently we have plenty of supplies and tech.

spikejones
02-03-09, 02:42
EDIT: Hey I just thought of something... what if a hacker hacked into the US government reserve or bank or whatever and gave the government one trillion dollars? Wouldn't that solve everything? Someone could just say it was an oversight. Do you think someone would actually sit there and count out one trillion dollars to see if the government actually had it? Who does that anymore? Its all just a bunch of numbers floating around on the internet. :)
and what if the government based their spending on the assumption that those 1 trillion dollars were actually there? where would that leave us then? deeper in debt no doubt.

Imagine if you will that you were to spend $1000 on your debit card, knowing that the money automatically gets withdrawn from you bank account. You are under the assumption that the system will automatically report these funds as being withdrawn as soon as the transaction is made, so instead of holding your receipt and balancing the checkbook as soon as you get home - you throw it away. Then you decide to log into the banks website to check your balance, and see that you have a balance of $10,000. Next, you decide to go down to the car dealership and make a down payment of $8,000. So now you are under the assumption that you have $2,000 still in your checking account. So off you go on a little celebratory shopping spree to soup up and customize your new car. You've just paid $1,600 on that. No problem you think, you've still got $400 in your account right? Now... this may seem a little ridiculous to actually happen as described, but lets just say that you are acting under the assumption that you are going to be getting a huge pay-off real soon for something that is in the works, and that is what has inspired the shopping spree.

So lets total everything up:
Starting account balance: 10,000
First transaction: -1000
Car payment: -8000
Car customization: -1600

Ending Balance: -$600

Because you assumed that you had 10,000 after making the first transaction - and not having balanced the checkbook, you just put yourself into $600 debt to the bank. Now, not only do you have to pay back that 600 dollars, but you also have an overdraft fee to pay. Simply assuming that a computer is reporting things accurately without actually checking on it can wind you up in a worse spot than before.

And that huge payoff you were expecting - it fell through. You won't be getting that money after all. In fact, the company was so displeased by your presentation that they fired you. Now you are in debt with no means of income.
------------

now imagine this on a much larger scale where we think we actually have 1 trillion dollars.