1876 replies to this topic

[Nee-sama]

Man, is there no middle ground? Something definitely has to give.. where is the 10trillion going to come from if we're already 10trillion dollars in debt!?
My Dad is going crazy over all this

[Nate River]

Man, is there no middle ground? Something definitely has to give.. where is the 10trillion going to come from if we're already 10trillion dollars in debt!?
My Dad is going crazy over all this

It'll be MUCH worse if he gets health care. However, when it comes to paying for it all he''s got four options:

Raise Taxes (politically difficuly especially to the degree he needs it, and tend to be economy killing to boot, making limited in effectiveness (see states like NY and California);

Sell Debt (becoming more difficult as people become less willing to buy it and worry about its worth (the more that's sold the less value it tends to have);

Monetize it (i.e. print money) (physically, the easiest, but also a bad, bad idea because it'll kill what's left of the dollar's value, and jack up inflation and interests rates, whiping out any potential economic recovery.) This is why State's actually are having an even harder time with their debts. If they run one, they can't print money to bail themselves out.

Cut 10 trillion worth of spending in other areas....uh...good luck with that.

[Nee-sama]

All that is understandable. It's like we're running around in circles like a chicken with it's head lopped off as a nation, getting no where and eventually we're gonna keel over. And if my Dad was writing this simile a Socialistic Hitler-Obama man would be the guy cooking and eatting the chicken. Make of that what you will lol.

[Derock]

Raise Taxes (politically difficuly especially to the degree he needs it, and tend to be economy killing to boot, making limited in effectiveness (see states like NY and California);

NY State right now is having drama in its Senate on party dominance. If that issue happening, I know it will be all of hell will break loose in a second in Albany.

[Sir Whirly]

It'll be MUCH worse if he gets health care. However, when it comes to paying for it all he''s got four options:

Raise Taxes (politically difficuly especially to the degree he needs it, and tend to be economy killing to boot, making limited in effectiveness (see states like NY and California);

Sell Debt (becoming more difficult as people become less willing to buy it and worry about its worth (the more that's sold the less value it tends to have);

Monetize it (i.e. print money) (physically, the easiest, but also a bad, bad idea because it'll kill what's left of the dollar's value, and jack up inflation and interests rates, whiping out any potential economic recovery.) This is why State's actually are having an even harder time with their debts. If they run one, they can't print money to bail themselves out.

Cut 10 trillion worth of spending in other areas....uh...good luck with that.

The only thing I can think of for a portion of that is to, quite literally, rip away all military operations going on in Iraq and Afganistan. But that would give us what? 1-2 trillion. Still doesnt help much.

[Nate River]

The only thing I can think of for a portion of that is to, quite literally, rip away all military operations going on in Iraq and Afganistan. But that would give us what? 1-2 trillion. Still doesnt help much.

It won't work on a couple of levels. The deficit is nearly 2 trillion this year alone. It's projected to be 10+ trillion over ten years and, again, this is without the health care. So, even if he saved that, it wouldn't be close to enough. It's simply do damn massive.

Speaking of Health Care....did you know Congress has exempted themselves and federal employees from the bill their putting together? That should tell you all you need to know about that.

The other problem is the political risk:

(1) He and many Democrats have often called Afghanistan the just war and the Iraq one as the war of choice. He campaigned on that idea, which puts him in a bind on Afghanistan. It would also further reinforce that both he and his party are weak on defense.

(2) If he does that solely on the basis of the debt he's run up, it makes him look totally irresponsible and doubly so if things go to hell once we pull out. It be really tough to tell the American, Iraqi, and Afghan people, that we bailed on them because he couldn't control his spending.

(3) Despite their rhetoric on Iraq, the Dems and Obama don't want to see either failure there or in Afghanistan, if for no other reason, they don't want it hung around their necks. If he pulls out because of that and either do fail, they will get blamed, he'll be a one term president, and if may be decades before they can shed the label of weak on defense.

(4) North Korea and Iran. The problem here is that even if he pulls, he may still be spending money militarily depending how far Kim Jong Il wants to take this. The other is thing that one reason I think the North is behaving the way it is is because it doesn't believe the world community or Obama have the balls to stop him when it really comes down to it. And I think this is justified because they haven't had those balls for the last twenty years and now he's acquired his trump card in a nuke. Think of how Kim Jong Il will view it if he sees Obama pull out because he doesn't have the money to maintain it.

If I had to guess, its going to be a combination of the above. We'll get military cuts, higher tax (t hey may already be in the health bill), sell more debt, and monetize what he can't sell.

The biggest problem politicians of all parties have: It's far easier to create a new program or increase spending on an existing one than it is to gut one. People will go ballistic even if you simply cut the rate of growth (vs. a genuine cut). Actually, when most politicians tell they're cutting spending somewhere, that's really what they mean: they're just cutting the rate of growth.

[Sir Whirly]

(2) If he does that solely on the basis of the debt he's run up, it makes him look totally irresponsible and doubly so if things go to hell once we pull out. It be really tough to tell the American, Iraqi, and Afghan people, that we bailed on them because he couldn't control his spending.

Or the out of control spending of the last administration. C'mon Nate, I know you feel it's necessary to point out the faults of Obama (which I dont disagree with) but stop putting all the blame on him. The trillion a year debt was already set into place and he is just making it worse.

[Nate River]

Or the out of control spending of the last administration. C'mon Nate, I know you feel it's necessary to point out the faults of Obama (which I dont disagree with) but stop putting all the blame on him. The trillion a year debt was already set into place and he is just making it worse.

Bush's highest deficit was a quarter of Obama's deficit for this year (480 billion (last years budget deficit) v. 2 trillion (Obama's deficit). The debt outline for the next ten years that supposed to run up 10 trillion in debt came from Obama and the Democrat Congress, not George W. Bush. That is on top of the debt this country already had.

Bush added to the total debt, absolutely, but nothing close to what Obama's proposed since he got into office. Bush's main budget buster before leaving office was the 700 Billion TARP program, which was supported by Obama and the Dems (remember Republicans defeated on the first go around and then some changed when the pork was put it which was beyond shameful). Bush should have never supported or signed that and deserves plenty of blame for it, but Obama and the Democratic Congress isn't off the hook either.

In his first three months of office, Obama proposed the 780 Billion stimulus package nobody read with virtually zero Republican support. Then he and Congress passed the 400 billion plus Omnibus spending bill also with virtually zero Republican support (over 1 trillion in spending programs in 3 months (half the deficit he's running up) and those were added to whatever deficit he was going to run anyway. And this is all before his 10 year budget outline, the money he's spending on GM and Chrysler and so on.
The 1.8-2 trillion dollar deficit for this year is Obama's, not Bush's.

If that number includes TARP, then Bush deserves blame for that portion. If it doesn't, then it's all Obama, and the proposed spending that's on its way, is definitely all him.

Bush's deserves blame for the specific debts HE run up during HIS administration, not the spending Obama's engaged in since he took office.

[Sir Whirly]

Bush's deserves blame for the specific debts HE run up during HIS administration, not the spending Obama's engaged in since he took office.

Yeah I know, but I also know his inflated spending is also an attempt to place a band-aid over a head wound.

Hey Nate, I believe you would like this, so go check this out. It's kinda old from April 2008, but pretty much points out everything goin on.

The Forbidden Financial Topic: The National Debt

[Nate River]

Yeah I know, but I also know his inflated spending is also an attempt to place a band-aid over a head wound.

Hey Nate, I believe you would like this, so go check this out. It's kinda old from April 2008, but pretty much points out everything goin on.

The Forbidden Financial Topic: The National Debt

I like the part about running it like a crack adddict. That's about the size of it. Spending other people's money is easy and running debt is easy so long as it APPEARS to be without consequences. And their right, there the list of offenders is long and goes back eighty years.

John Maynard Keynes may unintentionally be our undoing. Keyensian economics doesn't work and politicians have been spending us deep into debt for decades trying to prove the contrary.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Ben Smith (Yahoo News) –

In a potentially alarming trend for the White House, independent voters are deserting President Barack Obama nationally and especially in key swing states, recent polls suggest.

Obama’s job approval rating hit a — still healthy — low of 56 percent in the Gallup Poll on Wednesday. And pollsters are debating whether Obama’s expansive and expensive policy proposals or the ground-level realities of a still-faltering economy are driving the falling numbers.

But a source of the shift appears to be independent voters, who seem to be responding to Republican complaints of excessive spending and government control.

“This is a huge sea change that is playing itself out in American politics,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “Independents who had become effectively operational Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are now up for grabs and are trending Republican.

“They’re saying, ‘Costing too much, no results, see the downside, not sure of the upside,’” he said.

Obama retains extremely strong support from Democrats, and earlier this year lost much of the Republican support that followed a giddy Inauguration. It is the independents who appear to be currently on the move: Obama dropped 6 percentage points last week from the week before in Gallup’s tracking poll, and Quinnipiac University found a 5-percentage-point drop in approval from independents between early June and early July. Recent state polling shows drops over longer periods.

A Quinnipiac University poll of voters in economically troubled Ohio, released Tuesday, showed Obama’s approval rating slipping 8 points, to below 50 percent, from a poll two months earlier, with a plurality of 48 percent of independent voters disapproving of his job performance. A Public Policy Polling survey in Virginia found Obama’s approval and disapproval numbers effectively tied, with independents disapproving of the president’s job performance, 52 percent to 38 percent.

“That is fairly consistent with all our polling around the country — Obama tends to be really well-liked personally, but he’s starting to lose a majority of the independents,” said Public Policy’s Dean Debnam. Democrats have “had long enough in some voters’ minds that they’re getting blame for nothing happening, and Republicans are scaring them around health care and tax increases.”

“It’s been more or less inevitable that we’re going to see some decline in numbers for Democrats,” said Mark Mellman, another Democratic pollster. “For most folks, there’s not an election until 2010, and most economists suggest that by the time we get to 2010, we’re going to see the beginnings of an uptick in the economy.”

Republicans, however, see a longer-term opportunity, and congressional leaders like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have for months been laying the groundwork for an argument that Obama’s policies are both expensive and ineffectual — an argument that will have powerful sway as long as voters don’t feel a recovery.

“We are seeing it in Virginia and New Jersey and around the country — independents are behaving like Republicans again on certain issues, and it’s because Democrats’ policy seems to be at odds with where people are — and if they don’t work, they’re really going to be at odds,” McLaughlin said.

Independent voters, it appears, now need to feel tangible evidence that Obama’s policies work. Rhetoric is no longer enough.

“If you see unemployment keep rising or doesn’t go down, you’re going to see those independents continuing to shift,” McLaughlin said.

[Pite]

The Gov't has till 2010 until the dems. will lose their majorities in both Houses. So it is right now for them to get off with their future acts etc. It has been this way with Clinton whose Dems. lost their majority in 1994.

Also, it has been always like this, all the blame falls on the president (Bush, Van Buren etc.) and his party that often losses popularity since people expect quick painless panaceas and demand results right now. I think the people ought to wait until the end of thew 4th 2009 quarter to decide whyther the gov't is working or not. According to NPR analysts the stimulus won't kick in untill end of the summer, since most of the money is still sitting in the Fed.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for the first time ever

http://news.yahoo.co...economy_deficit

[Cloud]

"President Barack Obama and other administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have said the U.S. is committed to bringing down the deficits once the country has emerged from the current recession and financial crisis."

How bout we start doing that now? Instead of screwing us over further? I can't even find a job in my field right now cause of the bloody deficit.

Cause somebody had to go and sign a damn stimulus package that didn't work. :cookie:

[Nate River]

"President Barack Obama and other administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have said the U.S. is committed to bringing down the deficits once the country has emerged from the current recession and financial crisis."

How bout we start doing that now? Instead of screwing us over further? I can't even find a job in my field right now cause of the bloody deficit.

Cause somebody had to go and sign a damn stimulus package that didn't work. :cookie:

But, I won't have to pay anymore taxes to cover that will I, since, you know, I make less than $250,000 and all. Believe that when I see it.

Oh, and Shauna don't forget that that amount doesn't include Cap and Tax, the Health Care overhaul (which anyone who has done this can tell you, will eat your budget alive (ask the Europeans, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Hawaii)), and the possibility of a second stimulus.

[Cloud]

But, I won't have to pay anymore taxes to cover that will I, since, you know, I make less than $250,000 and all. Believe that when I see it.

Oh, and Shauna don't forget that that amount doesn't include Cap and Tax, the Health Care overhaul (which anyone who has done this can tell you, will eat your budget alive (ask the Europeans, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Hawaii)), and the possibility of a second stimulus.

HELL YES! ANOTHER STIMULUS!

The first one didn't work, so lets throw more money at it! I love it!

At this rate, I'll be jobless still when I graduate. Since no repair shops/company garages are hiring mechanics since they're so scared they're gonna be offed next.

[Sir Whirly]

I have a way to pay for Universal Healthcare. Legalize Marijuana. There I said it. Trillions, and I mean trillions, could be raised in taxes. Also it creates a new industry to help stimulate the economy.

I don't know, it just saddens me to see this overwhelming neo-facist rhetoric of not believing in helping out those in need. I find it sad to see those so called of faith to be the ones to scream "don't take my money". While I am conservative in the sense of keeping the market free, I am very liberal in the sense of believing in helping those less fortunate than myself. I think medicine should be socialized and that there should be socialized education of the college level.

We have seen far too many of these fat cats, who live in a life of opulence, look down upon those without. It makes me sick. They use a combination of fear, lowering of education value, and a false sense of superiority to control the masses. Even now, even though Barack Obama has been in office for only 6 months, have already cast a blanket of doubt. While I don't agree with his fiscal policies, I would rather have him in office than any of these so called Republicans.

I am going to say this, both Democrats and Republicans have been in the pockets of these overinflated HMO's and pharmaceutical companies for far too long. I say we stop this farce and truly listen to the people's needs.

[Pite]

Here is what I propose, make weed legal, make it super high taxed, and force everybody to smoke. It'll weed out the weak and weed, make a alot of money in tax, and keep our national heritage intact!

Seriously, if people want it give it to them and slap on a 30% sales tax. It'll see better than fresh bread.

[Nee-sama]

^ Exactly why I don't want it to be legalized.

[Derock]

Let's pause some serious politics and onto something funny:

http://chiaobama.com/



Let's hail the CH-CH-CH-Chief!