Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Prof., Mar 7, 2010.
Making our debt $20,000,000,000,000 by 2020. That's 90% of our Gross Domestic Product!
What was it under Bush? What would it have been in 2020 under bush assuming no more deficit spending? Are you putting this in perspective? Not to say this isn't a worrisome figure but still...
Wasn't it $9 trillion under Bush?
Adds more gravitas to that "Obama Bankrupting Nation" charge leveled at the president by Senators.
What does it matter? Bush is no longer president, Obama is. The thing is, President Obama isn't doing anything to make the situation better, instead he is making it worse.
You complain when people link to Daily Kos and HuffPo and you're linking to Free Republic?
I wouldn't say we'll be bankrupt. Let's not forget our GDP has been 120%+ in past years and we managed to get it down.
GDP Percentage Video Clip. Source, IOUSA.
IOUSA Byte-Sized Movie
Obama is a small percentage to blame for the budget under clinton when he left we had a 100B Surplus... oh and the unemployment only 4%.
I thought we were talking about the total debt not the debt increase. My bad .
It went to 10 Trillion under Bush because they had to take the National Debt LED sign down to add another digit. Or it was going to go to Ten and they were being proactive with the sign
Well it would help if the party of NO would allow Obama to introduce reforms...
And let's face it- the tax cuts for the rich need to expire, badly.
No probs, take a leaf out of Finland's book
That would allow Obama to do something productive and might him look slightly positive so you know they can't have that.
How about some massive spending cuts and tax increases for everyone else too? Everyone should foot the bill for this, not just a certain few people. If we're going to allow the cuts in the upper brackets to expire, we may as well get rid of the 10% bracket (down from 15%) that Bush's tax cuts created and allow the 2.5%-4.1% (the total cuts for all but one bracket in both tax cut years under Bush) cuts most of the other brackets received to expire as well.
The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that one of the reasons a certain East-Asian country has done rather well in the last few years is because of taxing the rich - I don't think claiming to be a "non-dom" or any other such ******** that the rich in the UK/US do to get out of paying tax would go down particularly well over there.
Works for me. I have nothing against playing our bills. If we get out our stupid wars, we'll cut our spending a lot.
Here in the United States we pride ourselves with fairness in all things and equally; such things as taxes should be applied equally and not discriminately applied. And in terms of the Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit, the Heritage Foundation's Foundry has a very nice reference article:
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit
President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.
So how do you propose to control the deficit? What steps should Obama take to control it?
China's not making it on taxes on its people so much as it's making it on having a significantly positive balance of trade. And their latest comment on the currency, figuratively, is a great big, "We're number One!" to Obama and Geithner. The Royal Order of the Rigid Digit, as it were.
Anyhow, as I kept predicting through the summer of 2008, Obama is continuing the Bush monetary policies. Or Greenspan's or Bernanke's or Paulson's or Geithner's--take your choice; they're all in the same church, all in the same choir.
So, we'll have a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit this year, latest estimate vice the earlier $1.35. Ongoing deficits will run in the near-trillion range for the next eight or so years.
There is not sufficient tax money available to cover that level of spending. Even "bringing the boys home" by declaring victory in Chaostan and bailing out wouldn't cover our shorts.
And don't forget that all you good taxpayers are on the hook for Fannie&Freddie's $5 to $6 trillion worth of paper, a goodly portion of which is toxic. Add that to the known federal debt, or probably half of F&F's book value, anyhow.
All that misery is made to look better by the cash method of accounting. If the government had to do the accrual method, as do corporations, all bets are off. When you figure the unfunded obligations of SS, Medicare, Medicaid and Free Pills, we're in hock for somewhere north of $70 trillion. (I think that's the CBO number; I disremember.) Some number-crunchers estimate north of $100 trillion.
Our deficit estimates are actually low because of the federal-debt-interest component of the budget. It's low, thanks to Bernanke et al. A return to historical average interest-rate levels would at least double this $353 billion-dollar budget item. You watch Treasury bond sales; interest rates are climbing.
The only way out is to inflate the money supply and pay down debt with cheaper dollars. The big problem with that is that consumer price inflation inevitably follows.
We may once have survived have the federal debt be greater than the GDP. But we were a manufacturing/exporting country, and had a bunch of savings. "Jingle in our jeans". Those days are long gone, most likely never to return.
But we've had ourselves one helluva sixty-year party, from 1945 to 2005.
And that's when I stopped reading. All you do is post biased sources.
Just making sure.
And I entirely agree about the wars.
Doesn't that just get them dollars and other currencies? They can only then spend them on imports.
It's so good to have your avatar back Lee.
You should look up the meaning of your dog-Latin terminology some day. It's pompous bollocks and quite inappropriate.