pssst....someone promised to do all the things you wanted him to do, then took office and did the opposite...and you're too busy attacking the democrats to care.
pssst....someone promised to do all the things you wanted him to do, then took office and did the opposite...and you're too busy attacking the democrats to care.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
And if Obama somehow ends up being a poor President (which I doubt, but let's assume), we will have only the Republicans and 8 years of GW Bush to blame for it.
Is this rocket science I'm speaking or are you just stupid? Wait... don't answer that.
We tried the Pubs. It didn't work. The Pubs have refused to even acknowledge the hows and whys of their failures. That leaves us with no option but to try the Dems next. So if Obama doesn't work out, it will (ironically) be the Pubs' fault.
You have no idea of the political landscape in this country right now, do you?
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
Well, one way Obama can demonstrate that he is serious in his support of those ideas is to establish a track record of fighting for them in the Senate, something he can do right now, but instead is punting. That way he can hash out policy specifics and show that he is willing to fight for these issues, which are some of the biggest doubts people have about him.
Do you really think/expect all those programs to be passed as he stated? What did Bush & Rumsfeld say the cost of the Iraq war would be? And what has it been so far? Its funny how ProjJohn sort of supported Obama in the Obama VS Clinton race and now proceeds to bash the man.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:roll: This is P&N and the topic is Obama's spending. There are other threads(or make a new one) for that discussion.
Alright, since PJ threw up some numbers I'll throw up some numbers. There is no point in trying to decide if Obama will be able to "pay down the debt" since the first half to 3/4 of his term is going to be dealing with the crap leftover from GWB&Co.
So number game.
Let's go with the 141 Billion a year, since that was good old PJ's number.
124 Billion increase tax renue from raising the SS tax limit
Now he only has to cover 17 Billion right?
Here I will just throw this one out, if you want I can find a company or two combined that would have made up that 17 billion
As I said, there is a ton out there. You are too lazy and close minded to check. So if truly want to know this issue go do a little research and stop trolling.
An edit:
I took a pretty big liberty with the SS tax, since ideally he stated he wants that money to go back to the SS fun which the repubs have been "borrowing" from. The reforms he is putting through in tax laws and spending is where the money will come from. Of course, you knew that since you like to stay an informed individual right PJ?
Lets not forget the cost of the Iraq war...Just reducing that by a certain percentage, not even pulling out fully would more than finance any of this new spending when moving towards balancing the budget.
So number game.
Let's go with the 141 Billion a year, since that was good old PJ's number.
124 Billion increase tax renue from raising the SS tax limit
Now he only has to cover 17 Billion right?
Here I will just throw this one out, if you want I can find a company or two combined that would have made up that 17 billion
As I said, there is a ton out there. You are too lazy and close minded to check. So if truly want to know this issue go do a little research and stop trolling.
An edit:
I took a pretty big liberty with the SS tax, since ideally he stated he wants that money to go back to the SS fun which the repubs have been "borrowing" from. The reforms he is putting through in tax laws and spending is where the money will come from. Of course, you knew that since you like to stay an informed individual right PJ?
Lets not forget the cost of the Iraq war...Just reducing that by a certain percentage, not even pulling out fully would more than finance any of this new spending when moving towards balancing the budget.
I would think your dream should be that Obama and Democrats win in a landslide of epic proportions in November, then go nuts with their new mandate and expand government and spend wildly.
Presumably, a lot of the electorate that don't have an rabid Pavlovian response to the latest daily talking point would see this, and start to adjust their voting during the next midterms and presidential campaign.
If you're so unhappy with the current Republican Party and have to hold your nose to vote for McCain, you should be hoping for an epic landslide that destroys the Republican Party as it is currently constituted, and then establishe a completely new power base that is closer to what you feel the Republican Party should represent.
Voting for McCain is IMO just asking for four more years, because, he has no new leverage to change the game if elected (no new tremendous base of new voters or donors ala Obama). Even if he wants change, the power brokers entrenched in Washington will just use him as a puppet president who will allow them to pit one American against another over innane wedge issues, all the while continuing to rape and pillage the country for four more years.
Even if Obama can't restraint the Democratic Party and they go nuts on spending and expanding government, I'm guessing that they won't be able to completely undo what has occured over the last 8 years.
And he would only be a one term president.
Presumably, a lot of the electorate that don't have an rabid Pavlovian response to the latest daily talking point would see this, and start to adjust their voting during the next midterms and presidential campaign.
If you're so unhappy with the current Republican Party and have to hold your nose to vote for McCain, you should be hoping for an epic landslide that destroys the Republican Party as it is currently constituted, and then establishe a completely new power base that is closer to what you feel the Republican Party should represent.
Voting for McCain is IMO just asking for four more years, because, he has no new leverage to change the game if elected (no new tremendous base of new voters or donors ala Obama). Even if he wants change, the power brokers entrenched in Washington will just use him as a puppet president who will allow them to pit one American against another over innane wedge issues, all the while continuing to rape and pillage the country for four more years.
Even if Obama can't restraint the Democratic Party and they go nuts on spending and expanding government, I'm guessing that they won't be able to completely undo what has occured over the last 8 years.
And he would only be a one term president.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Don't pretend we're stupid. The topic is a blatant red herring troll. That's obvious from how easy the OP is answered, i.e. "Ending the war should offset most of those programs."
Meh. And you and PJ deserve this for your blind partisanship. You'd defend Bush, and play the "fear the tax and spend lib-uh-rals!" card, even if Bush nuked a major US city.
Since you are not a moderator and you cant do what you please we will discuss as we like and if you dont like it you can stop reading.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
More straw men trolling on your part.
This "longest ugliest" contest as only mobilized the Democratic party. Their race has been media headlines for months and they've registered tens of millions of new voters.
And the President doesn't pass programs, he proposes them. And even with a heavily Democratic congress, it would still be unlikely for Obama to get more than half of these proposals passed.
Thus, your whole thread is bullshit. One big pre-emptive duhversion to troll out duhversions.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Vic, the only people making 'duhversions' are you guys who refuse to address any of the points made about Obama and spending.
Have you even addressed Obama's spending? What do you think about his plans to spend $800 billion over his first term?
Instead of bitching about Bush why not talk about Obama?
The problem with that being? It is going to take 1-3 years no matter who becomes the POTUS to start work on a solution to this crap. It is better than the slash all social program because we want results today that you are pushing for.
I'm glad you were able to do some research though
Good job PJ Now what is wrong with that answer?The repub fiscal debacle is much too fresh for Dems to seriously increase spending prior to increasing revenue. Even though nobody wants to talk about it, raising taxes in some fashion or another is a given, and escape from the bottomless fiscal pit of Iraq a necessity. Trimming some fat from the military, medicare, administration, farm subsidies and some other programs can be done fairly painlessly, as well, freeing up funding for other purposes.
There's the McCain alternative, of course, more taxcuts for corporate America, the people at the top, to, uhh, stimulate the economy, yeh, that's it... we can borrow our way to prosperity if we only go about it in a very determined fashion, depend on the inherent goodness of capitalism to fulfill all needs, right?
There's the McCain alternative, of course, more taxcuts for corporate America, the people at the top, to, uhh, stimulate the economy, yeh, that's it... we can borrow our way to prosperity if we only go about it in a very determined fashion, depend on the inherent goodness of capitalism to fulfill all needs, right?
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
The problem is that Obama is not talking about balancing the budget in 1-3 years. He is talking about a 'path' to a balanced budget. He never says when that path will reach its destination.Originally posted by: RichardE
The problem with that being? It is going to take 1-3 years no matter who becomes the POTUS to start work on a solution to this crap. It is better than the slash all social program because we want results today that you are pushing for.
I'm glad you were able to do some research though
Now for some historical perspective.
The 1994 budget deficit was $200 billion.
It took us three whole years to go from $200 billion in the hole to a balanced budget.
1995 $163 billion
1996 $107 billion
1997 $21 billion
So why isn't Obama suggesting that we can re-balance the budget in 3 years? Or even 4 years?
Why is he instead talking about a 'path' to a balanced budget, but never saying when we will achieve that goal.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The problem is that Obama is not talking about balancing the budget in 1-3 years. He is talking about a 'path' to a balanced budget. He never says when that path will reach its destination.Originally posted by: RichardE
The problem with that being? It is going to take 1-3 years no matter who becomes the POTUS to start work on a solution to this crap. It is better than the slash all social program because we want results today that you are pushing for.
I'm glad you were able to do some research though
Now for some historical perspective.
The 1994 budget deficit was $200 billion.
It took us three whole years to go from $200 billion in the hole to a balanced budget.
1995 $163 billion
1996 $107 billion
1997 $21 billion
So why isn't Obama suggesting that we can re-balance the budget in 3 years? Or even 4 years?
Why is he instead talking about a 'path' to a balanced budget, but never saying when we will achieve that goal.
You can't really not figure that out on your own can you? Here, I'll give you a chance to think outside the box as to why Obama would say this. I'm sure you can pull it off. I'll also give you a chance to see the major difference between 1995-1997 and 2008-2011. Let's see if you can do it.
There nothing quite as disgusting as Borrow and Spend Republicans lambasting the other side for taxing and spending. It's overwhelmingly clear which is more responsible than the other.
Hint for the utterly clueless: it's tax & spend FTW!
While I'd greatly prefer "barely tax and barely spend" that doesn't seem to be a choice in today's political landscape.
Hint for the utterly clueless: it's tax & spend FTW!
While I'd greatly prefer "barely tax and barely spend" that doesn't seem to be a choice in today's political landscape.
Here's a post by profjohn just yesterday in a different thread:
So which is it? Does Congress control balancing the budget, or does the President? You can't have it both ways.
So which is it? Does Congress control balancing the budget, or does the President? You can't have it both ways.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter