O-Bammah just wants to get you ready to be taxed like no tomorrow, so he can make an even bigger and bigger socialist government.
One of the first things he did was present an honest budget summary.
The recovery act cut payroll taxes $397 billion dollars.
Individual and corporate tax receipts this fiscal year are equal to the revenue received in FY2000 and are at the lowest percentage of GDP since the late 1950s.
If he can slowly recover the economy without creating a bubble over the next ten years the deficit may not entirely vanish but it will come close.
The 'worst case' projection for the US GDP over the next 10 years is around $175 trillion - by 2019 GDP will be $22.5 trillion a year. I'll take $300 billion of debt that year - maybe a little more - just as long as it's not spent on elective wars and tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.
If the US Gov't sez we need a butt-load of debt to avoid a global catastrophe I don't like it but it sure beats the crap out of the alternative.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
I repeat... You guys act like Obama spent all this money for the hell of it. It was neccesary given the circumstances. Your comment about nothing meaningful for 12 months is not relevant or accurate. Some of the effect was immediate, some is happening now, some will not been seen for many years.
Your boy broke, so dont bitch about the fix.
Regardless of your feeling on the stimulus bill his budgets still present a major problem. Those are long term and have little to do with preventing a great depression.
So my boy broke it, and Obama's plan is to break it bigger?
kk
Im glad the president says we have an issue here, but I really really wish he would lead through action and not words.
I know many of you think all the spending we have done and are doing is neccesary, but I cant believe that Obama's administration couldnt come up with an alternative that didnt add so much onto our debt if they really had to.
Beyond that, I think its quite obvious that Obama's administration is not going to be cutting back major spending for quite sometime. With things like UHC, social security, etc, there isnt much room in there for cutting back. It will be up to the next president to do anything meaningful.
I know many of you think all the spending we have done and are doing is neccesary, but I cant believe that Obama's administration couldnt come up with an alternative that didnt add so much onto our debt if they really had to.
Beyond that, I think its quite obvious that Obama's administration is not going to be cutting back major spending for quite sometime. With things like UHC, social security, etc, there isnt much room in there for cutting back. It will be up to the next president to do anything meaningful.
Because politicians have told you that, it must be true!!
Sorry, Bush wasn't "my boy". Some of us think outside the two-party box.
The issue with health care is in short time it will approach 22% of GDP - the goal is to try to keep it in the 17-18% range of GDP.
And we will still have to compete globally with countries who consume 15% of the GDP providing health care to all their citizens.
And we will still have to compete globally with countries who consume 15% of the GDP providing health care to all their citizens.
You must be one of the stupidest humans alive.
Obama inherited the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.
By some metrics, this crisis is even worse.
Right now the banks are broke. Some of them are literally broke, some of them are "broke" compared to what they need to actually help the economy.
The government is spending money in an attempt to prevent this from turning into a major disaster with people starving to death and riots in the street.
Oh, and PS, the Obama administration is also including various military expenditures in the budget that Bush simply left out. That adds 100s of billions to the deficit "number."
Obama does not WANT to spend so much. He has to, in order to prevent a civil war.
How do you remember to breathe?
I agree with you on this even if we disagree on the solution. We simply cant have healthcare grow at the rates it does and expect to remain competitive.
i think one is capable of both understanding that you can't run massive deficits forever, yet still running one for a couple years.
I am currently running a massive person deficit to pay for college, yet I don't plan on doing it forever.
No the wasteful spending was not needed. There were other ways to go about business, like injecting money into the people that buy the products, not injecting money into businesses that are still goign to fail because they have no money coming in beasides government money stolen from the public.
Most of th epolls I have seen, the majority of the public did not want these bailouts, so yes I feal this money was stolen from us. Not to mention the flat out lies that Obama said he would allow all congress, the public, and him to read the bills for days before they were passed. Didn't even happen.
I thought we have had some fucked up presidencies, but this cream is floating to the top of that list quickly.
Yes, but I'm thinking your not running such a massive debt that people are saying that your grandchild will still be paying for it when you die. Most student loans are paid off by the original owner, not their descendants.
actually most people have debt all their lives, they just roll it over from student loans to mortgages to credit cards etc.
right now, i'm probably still 'paying' for WW2, big deal.
Also: raise taxes.
If that was Obama's plan I can agree with you. However look at his best estimate for 8 years and let us know when we get back to "small" deficits.
I just found this whole thing amusing. Like the arsonist telling kids that setting fires is bad as he lights a match and sets a blaze.
Most people do have debt, but most people are also able to keep it in check. There needs to be line where we stop this run up in debt. Using your analogy, we would want our government actively following a plan to pay the debt back, I havent heard of any specific plan they are following, just that they continue to propose spending policies.
I also have debt, but becuase of that debt, I have had to change my spending habits. I cant keep spending money I dont have, or I would be out of a place to live, my car, etc. So far, the government isnt following that at all. Personally, Im all for the government making at least temporary large cuts in order to give the country time to recover some or all of its debt before taking on major policies that cost large amounts of money.
Just as I might have to eat ramen noodles so that I can pay my bills one month, so should the government reign itself in when money is tight.
But they also have ASSETS, such that our personal balance sheets (hopefully) reflect a positive total. An economy in which "most people" have debts>assets is not sustainable.
Simply won't happen by any significant amount.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,187
- 4,853
- 126
Watch the campaign again. Obama made it very clear that he wanted increased short term spending and decreased long term spending. The only possible way to do that is to slash medicare / medicaid / social security. If he can do that, he'll be the Republican's hero. I don't really think he can though.
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
Bush signs the TARP bill and gives trillions to banks.
Conservatives: That's fine, he's preventing an economic collpase.
Obama signs the Stimulus bill to allocate hundreds of billions for public works projects, infrastructure improvements, and investment into alternative energy.
Conservatives: PORK!!! TAX AND SPEND LIBERAL!!!! SOCIALIST!!!!!!
Raise your hand if you think McCain would not have enacted some kind of stimulus bill.
It needed to be passed. McCain would have passed a similar bill to jolt the economy and would also be piling up the national debt.
This is a bipartisan issue, folks. We don't need the pot calling the kettle black or vice versa.
If the economy is under control and the debt is still increasing, then we all have something to bitch about.
Conservatives: That's fine, he's preventing an economic collpase.
Obama signs the Stimulus bill to allocate hundreds of billions for public works projects, infrastructure improvements, and investment into alternative energy.
Conservatives: PORK!!! TAX AND SPEND LIBERAL!!!! SOCIALIST!!!!!!
Raise your hand if you think McCain would not have enacted some kind of stimulus bill.
It needed to be passed. McCain would have passed a similar bill to jolt the economy and would also be piling up the national debt.
This is a bipartisan issue, folks. We don't need the pot calling the kettle black or vice versa.
If the economy is under control and the debt is still increasing, then we all have something to bitch about.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter