Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Most red ink ever: $9 trillion over next decade

Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:09 PM EDT
business, politics, us, obama, white-house, economy
Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 4 photos
<p>President Barack Obama announces in Oak Bluffs, Mass., Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009, he is keeping Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke for a second term. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)</p>

President Barack Obama announces in Oak Bluffs, Mass., Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009, he is keeping Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke for a second term. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — In a chilling forecast, the White House is predicting a 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding. And it says by the next decade's end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy.

But before President Barack Obama can do much about it, he'll have to weather recession aftershocks including unemployment that his advisers said Tuesday is still heading for 10 percent.

Overall, White House and congressional budget analysts said in a brace of new estimates that the economy will shrink by 2.5 to 2.8 percent this year even as it begins to climb out of the recession. Those estimates reflect this year's deeper-than-expected economic plunge.

The grim deficit news presents Obama with both immediate and longer-term challenges. The still fragile economy cannot afford deficit-fighting cures such as spending cuts or tax increases. But nervous holders of U.S. debt, particularly foreign bondholders, could demand interest rate increases that would quickly be felt in the pocketbooks of American consumers.

Amid the gloomy numbers on Tuesday, Obama signaled his satisfaction with improvements in the economy by announcing he would nominate Republican Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. The announcement, welcomed on Wall Street, diverted attention from the budget news and helped neutralize any disturbance in the financial markets from the high deficit projections.

The White House Office of Management and Budget indicated that the president will have to struggle to meet his vow of cutting the deficit in half in 2013 — a promise that earlier budget projections suggested he could accomplish with ease.

"This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter," said Obama economic adviser Christina Romer.

The deficit numbers also could complicate Obama's drive to persuade Congress to enact a major overhaul of the health care system — one that could cost $1 trillion or more over 10 years. Obama has said he doesn't want the measure to add to the deficit, but lawmakers have been unable to agree on revenues that would cover the cost.

What's more, the high unemployment is expected to last well into the congressional election campaign next year, turning the contests into a referendum on Obama's economic policies.

Republicans were ready to pounce.

"The alarm bells on our nation's fiscal condition have now become a siren," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone — spending, borrowing and debt are out of control."

Even supporters of Obama's economic policies said the long-term outlook places the federal government on an unsustainable path that will force the president and Congress to consider politically unpopular measures, including tax increases and cuts in government programs.

"The numbers today portend the biggest budget fight we've probably had in decades in the United States," said Stan Collender, a former congressional budget official.

The summer analyses by the White House budget office and by the Congressional Budget Office reached similarly bleak conclusions. The CBO's 10-year deficit figure was smaller — $7 trillion — but that is because it assumes that all tax cuts put into place in the administration of former President George W. Bush will expire on schedule by 2011. Obama's budget baseline, however, hews to his proposal to keep the tax cuts in place for families earning less than $250,000 a year.

Both budget offices see the national debt — the accumulation of annual budget deficits — as more than doubling over the next decade. The public national debt, made up of amounts the government owes to the public, including foreign governments, stood Tuesday at a staggering $7.4 trillion. White House budget officials predicted it would reach $17.5 trillion in 2019, or 76.5 percent of the gross domestic product. That would be the highest proportion in six decades.

Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf said if Congress doesn't reduce deficits, interest rates are likely to rise, hurting the economy. But if Congress acts too soon, the economic recovery — once it arrives — could be thwarted.

"We face perils in acting and perils in not acting," Elmendorf told reporters.

David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office, said the numbers illustrated the need for a national commission that would review spending and taxing options and present lawmakers with a deficit reduction plan that Congress could approve or reject.

"We're going to have to do a hard course correction once we turn the corner on the economy," Walker, now president and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, said.

Both Romer and Obama budget director Peter Orszag said this year's contraction would have been far worse without money from the $787 billion economic stimulus package that the president pushed through Congress as one of his first major acts.

At the same time, the continuing stresses on the economy have, in effect, increased the size of the stimulus package because the government will have to spend more in unemployment insurance and food stamps, Orszag said. He said the cost of the stimulus package — which spends most of its money in fiscal year 2010 — will grow by tens of billions of dollars above the original $787 billion.

The White House also credited the $3 billion cash-for-clunkers auto program for contributing to recent economic growth.

Orszag, anticipating backlash over the deficit numbers, conceded that the long-term deficits are "higher than desirable." The annual negative balances amount to about 4 percent of the gross domestic product, a number that many economists say is unsustainable.

But Orszag also argued that overhauling the health system would reduce health care costs and address the biggest contributor to higher deficits.

"I know there are going to be some who say that this report proves that we can't afford health reform," he said. "I think that has it backward."

At the same time, 10-year budget projections can be "wildly inaccurate," said Collender, now a partner at Qorvis Communications. Collender noted that there will be five congressional elections over the next 10 years and any number of foreign and domestic challenges that will make actual deficit figures very different from the estimates.

__

Associated Press writers Christopher S. Rugaber, Tom Raum and Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jim Kuhnhenn's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Outraged Americans For Justice, Reagan Conservatives
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (275)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Want Me To Play Nice? NAH!

The White House Office of Management and Budget indicated that the president will have to struggle to meet his vow of cutting the deficit in half in 2013 — a promise that earlier budget projections suggested he could accomplish with ease.

"This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter," said Obama economic adviser Christina Romer.

Translation: "I am breaking another promise, it wasnt my fault, I am going to blame Bush again. Please do not pay attention to the fact that I was in the Senate last fall and winter so I had the same numbers everyone else had to work with when I made that promise."

  • 28 votes
#1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:36 PM EDT
Nicey-1026620

He promised to cut the deficit in half. Not the debt.

3...2...1...what's the difference?

(And by 2013 or whatever the deficit will probably be less than half of 1.6 trillion projected for this year)

We can have a deficit of 800 billion dollars and he can still fulfill that promise.

Aside from the fact that this article starts off wrong to begin with. We already have over 10 trillion in debt.

So now 9 trillion in deficit added to the debt starting this fiscal year going out a decade is somehow more than 10 trillion?

If we ended 2020 with only 75% debt to GDP ratio, I'd be pleased with that. It's around 70% right now (70% of 14.433 trillion GDP = 10.1 trillion give or take current debt)

  • 3 votes
#1.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:54 PM EDT
RyanMS

Sounds like what Bush said after they went into Iraq and realized that there actually were very few weapons of mass destruction. "Oh, we just had inadequate information." Whatever. This current administration is BS just like the last one. If people would just vote third party instead of being told who to vote for by the two power-swollen parties, they might not be suffering so much right now.

  • 8 votes
#1.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:03 PM EDT
Evil 1Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

LOL, LOL, LOL, .......................... what a loser and liar!! Hope & Change................. ROTFLMAO!!!

  • 21 votes
#1.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:20 PM EDT
usfreestar

He promised to cut the deficit in half. Not the debt.

3...2...1...what's the difference?

Easy now!

The White House Office of Management and Budget indicated that the president will have to struggle to meet his vow of cutting the deficit in half in 2013 — a promise that earlier budget projections suggested he could accomplish with ease.

With a forecast of a 9 trillion deficit "within the next decade" we can rest assured that the deficit will not be cut in half by 2013. Question is if we can also rest assured that Obama will not impose any further expenses upon us until then. Here's the answer:

The deficit numbers also could complicate Obama's drive to persuade Congress to enact a major overhaul of the health care system — one that could cost $1 trillion or more over 10 years. Obama has said he doesn't want the measure to add to the deficit, but lawmakers have been unable to agree on revenues that would cover the cost.

EVEN when presenting the country with a record deficit Obama is not able to present a viable plan that shows his health care plan will be cost neutral OR to say hey, we will have to wait with any major overhauls before we have attended to the economy.

Right there he is signing his own lame duck presidency.

The annual negative balances amount to about 4 percent of the gross domestic product, a number that many economists say is unsustainable.

Which means the only thing I can support at this point is:

David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office, said the numbers illustrated the need for a national commission that would review spending and taxing options and present lawmakers with a deficit reduction plan that Congress could approve or reject.

National Health Care? Fugetaboutit...

  • 10 votes
#1.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:50 PM EDT
tom sevigny

"This evening, Change has come to America".

Interpretation: You think GW F'ed this country up. You ain't seen nothing yet. I'm an overachiever. Just ask my socialist friends.

  • 19 votes
#1.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:55 PM EDT
Adrian Thorn

Yeah, Barack's a nice guy. I'd have a beer with him and all. I didn't vote for him though. Had we used a Socialist approach to this problem, we wouldn't have spent billions of dollars bailing out the banks.

Signed,

Adrian Thorn, Socialist.

  • 4 votes
#1.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:30 PM EDT
radiowave

This was a long time coming, I personally blame the baby boomers (the me, greed generation) for accelerating us down this path.

How long were we going to live on the credit path of wealth, while we return to the pre-turn of the century rich / poor nation that we have become.

Rich don't want a middle class, just a return to slavery without the documented in-servitude papers that come with slavery.

Poor have never had it better either once they get on the public dole. Free healthcare, subsidized housing etc.

Time for angry middle class to vote people in government that will return us to prosperity and get rid of the social inequities that are killing the middle class.

  • 8 votes
#1.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:39 PM EDT
tom sevigny

Adrian,

Go rough up a liberal African-American scholar in Massachusettes if you want that beer with BarryO bad enough.

  • 10 votes
#1.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:58 PM EDT
Fellow NoName

ha ha you don't even have to rough him up! Just walk away from him while he is chasing you calling you a racist!

  • 12 votes
#1.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:41 PM EDT
Simplistic Reality

Most red ink ever: $9 trillion over next decade

Please.. nobody act suprised about this. We all knew this was going to happen... and Obama breaking promises and spending like out of control. Is this the Obama you voted for?

  • 9 votes
#1.10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:14 PM EDT
marcv-1026579

Folks

Things are getting real scary! We are quickly running out of doors of opportunity to help solve our financial crisis. I beg our new administration and our democratic congress to back off on Healthcare for right now! DEBT MUST BE CONTROLLED FIRST BEFORE WE LAUNCH OURSELVES INTO SUCH AN ENORMOUS PROGRAM LIKE HEALTHCARE! I cannot believe we are talking about 9 Trillion dollars!! It is very apparent to me that our elected officials on both sides of the isle are truly clueless! Personal wealth in this country has been decimated. Everything that was gained in the last 10 years has been wiped clean. All this money disappearing is the fault of all our elected officials, Not just President Bush! They all need to be held responsible for what has happened to our great country!

Our economy will never rebound without unemployment and home prices stabilizing. Even though the news on these two critical areas is better than they have been, I am very concerned that our fragile condition will worsen quickly by the end of the 1st quarter of 2010. The thought process that the government alone will lead us out of this mess is very foolish. The damage is so severe most have no clue. Any successful return to normality will need to be led by a consumer confidence boom and I doubt that will be able to happen if unemployment spirals to 12% by mid spring. The GDP will not even remotely approach the numbers predicted by the administration. This is just a small sampling of what needs to be managed right now.

Creating a government run healthcare system during this financial crisis will drive the nail RIGHT THROUGH THE HEART OF OUR COUNTRY!! The government cannot even process and get the money out to the auto dealers after that little disaster. That was only a mere 3 billion! Compare that to a government run HealthCare costing multi TRILLIONS. That Is Scary!

  • 4 votes
#1.11 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:54 PM EDT
Bill N..

radiowave - Its not the baby-boomers that caused this economy - unless you're talking about Pelosi and the gang. :P

  • 1 vote
#1.12 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:00 AM EDT
blll

zzzz...

95% of the Federal Debt was created by Republican Presidents in the last 30 years. Plus, about 90% of the Federal unfunded obligations, which are 5 times more money.

Republicans are talking about fiscal responsibility but Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were the king and crown princes of deficit spending. Until we meet a Republican who is actually fiscally responsible, the economists are going to continue to laugh at the GOP.

  • 5 votes
#1.13 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:03 AM EDT
Kolby-1075823

Keep living in the dark Bill.......

  • 4 votes
#1.14 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:38 AM EDT
Nicey-1026620

With a forecast of a 9 trillion deficit "within the next decade" we can rest assured that the deficit will not be cut in half by 2013. Question is if we can also rest assured that Obama will not impose any further expenses upon us until then. Here's the answer:

This is largely why I ignore you. Because, despite the fact that I'm about to post irrefutable evidence, you will simply not pay attention.

10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion

From the article. Not "within" but a decade, 10 years. [Which BTW, assume Obama is not president in 2012, or 2016, yet you want to plow forward blaming someone for all of it. Even I give Bush a pass on some federal spending because I'm objective enough to realize no one man can control the entire federal budget....]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10296/TablesforWeb.xls

If you don't have excel...here it is in PDF...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10296/TablesforWeb.pdf

You can easily see on the very first page the CBOs projection of the POTUS budget (which includes estimates of added cost for healthcare)

Look at that...FY 2009 will be 1.825 trillion, FY 2013 will be 647 Billion.

Is 647 Billion less than half of 1.825 trillion?

You might also note why the POTUS estimate is actually worse than the CBO, it's not only his added outlays, but also the POTUS estimate believes we will have less tax revenues. Indicating they are taking a less favorable forecast than the CBO.

Perhaps you'd like a more up to date one?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/08-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf

This is from the CBOs current release for August. (Reference Page 18)

Which includes what I thought it would...the early estimate that the CBO had not revised for this budget year at 1.825 trillion was too harsh.

New revised is 1.587 trillion, and revised for 2013 FY is 538 Billion, Go back to the first and add 347 billion difference to the POTUS budget (which is marked by 171 billion less in Tax Revenues, and 176 Billion in spending increase)

In this case, you would have a 45% reduction...so that's not half? It looks pretty much like half to me. Coupled with the fact that the CBO has not done a new baseline comparison to the POTUS budget. The CBO correction is actually a reflection of what the POTUS already estimated, that future tax revenues wouldn't be as strong as the CBO thought.

In which case, the POTUS demonstrated this ahead of the CBO...

What now Freestar?

EVEN when presenting the country with a record deficit Obama is not able to present a viable plan that shows his health care plan will be cost neutral OR to say hey, we will have to wait with any major overhauls before we have attended to the economy.

We're talking about spending increases on the order of 100-200 billion to the budget in his first term. Look at the CBO sheet.

Is that "unaffordable"? Probably not.

The annual negative balances amount to about 4 percent of the gross domestic product, a number that many economists say is unsustainable.

Yet we exceeded those numbers for around a decade in the 30s into the 40s. And we debt financed all of it. Did the country collapse on itself or am I missing something?

  • 3 votes
#1.15 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:41 AM EDT
usfreestar

I should actually ignore you - but you are too entertaining joggling your numbers hither an dither to fit your "opinion". lol

From the article. Not "within" but a decade, 10 years. [Which BTW, assume Obama is not president in 2012, or 2016, yet you want to plow forward blaming someone for all of it.

Within!! If you understand the term "budget" the deficit is progressing from now and until 2019. If you had read the budget overview you would have caught that....

Blaming forward? Like the Liberals are blaming backwards? Nah....next year we will install another power structure in Congress who will actually eliminate the deficit, instead of increasing it.

The deficit increase from 2010 to 2014 according to the White House: 3,767 trillion

The deficit increase from 2010 to 2019 according to the White House: 6,969 trillion

According to Obama's own promises during the campaign he promised to cut the deficit in half. You do understand the difference between a deficit increase and a deficit decrease? Otherwise the numbers above should give you a hint. In other words Obama has to - before 2012 - decrease the accumulated deficit in billions:

2008: 459

2009: 1,752

2010: 1,171

2011: 912

2012: 581

I would be pleased to see that happen. But I sincerely doubt it.

We're talking about spending increases on the order of 100-200 billion to the budget in his first term.

In your dreams. Insuring 46 million people alone with let's say $2000 each year (which of course if impossible) and almost 200 billion is already gone - without one single of them having received one dollar in actual care! Just the typical liberal BS to cover up for economic managerial incompetence I'm afraid.

The fact is that we have a shrinking economy, unemployment, are in a recession, and your president continue to push for a further expense in the shape of national health care while the deficit is increasing

more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding.

Period.

  • 3 votes
#1.16 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:32 PM EDT
RyanMS

Nicey, thanks for posting the report.
However, I think you might be mistaken in how to read it. The 'change' in deficit you refer to (1.825 trillion in 2009 to 647 billion in 2013) is not a reduction in the overall deficit. All of those negative numbers are added together each year. For instance, the report says that the deficits will be $1.825 trillon, $1.432 trillion, $974 billion, $633 billlion, $647 billion, $726 billion, $763 billion, $873 billion, $927 billion, $999 billion, $1.163 trillion for the years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 respectively. So 1.432 trillion is the deficit for 2010, and then we add that to a deficit of 974 billion for the year of 2011, and so on, until we get a total defict of $9.139 trillion from 2010-2019. So the "reduction" from 1.825 trillion to 647 billion that you're referring to does not exist. You're supposed to ADD those numbers together, along with all the other negative numbers, in order to get the TOTAL deficit. So from now to 2013, according to this report, the deficit will increase from $1.825 trillion to $5.511 trillion (you get this by adding 1,825 billion + 1,432 billion + 974 billion +633 billion + 647 billion).
Nice try, thanks for playin'.
Next thing you know, they'll be trying to tell us that the deficit technically decreased since it became more negative....sorry, nerdy joke, had to say it :P

  • 1 vote
#1.17 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:31 PM EDT
Nicey-1026620

I should actually ignore you - but you are too entertaining joggling your numbers hither an dither to fit your "opinion". lol

There's no juggling of any numbers. The latest CBO report actually puts it at way less than half, my adding of 347 billion to the debt is what made it a 45% reduction.

By the current August CBO projection the FY 2013 deficit will be 538 Billion. Which would be a reduction 65%.

http://www.cbo.gov/

The CBO has not done a comparison for August of the POTUS budget. Look on the lower right, there is the direct comparison from June.

Within!! If you understand the term "budget" the deficit is progressing from now and until 2019. If you had read the budget overview you would have caught that....

Explain to me the deficit increasing...point covered VVVV a little later.

Blaming forward? Like the Liberals are blaming backwards? Nah....next year we will install another power structure in Congress who will actually eliminate the deficit, instead of increasing it.

How about we look at how much debt is accumulated and who is in office? Something you don't seem to understand is blaming 1 person for debt is far too simplistic, and FY (Fiscal Years) overlap presidential terms.

I'm just not as naive as you are. Give me the evidence that the party you are favoring will balance it? They didn't do it 1 single time over 8 years.

There's a very high liklihood that we will never, ever pay off our debt no matter who is in charge. You're living in lala land, I live in the world of practicality and being able to process it.

The deficit increase from 2010 to 2014 according to the White House: 3,767 trillion

....?

Again. Look up Deficit and Debt. A deficit is what is recorded annually from the budget. The annual deficit shortfall is added to the national debt.

It would be interesting if the "deficit" increase was 3.767 trillion dollars...

The deficit increase from 2010 to 2019 according to the White House: 6,969 trillion

Source?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10296/06-16-AnalysisPresBudget_forWeb.pdf

You can't get half these numbers right, why should I trust you?

This is from June. It's the Pres. Budget, the article just above...

The CBO's 10-year deficit figure was smaller — $7 trillion

Smaller...yet you're saying the POTUS budget just realeased that is less than 7 trillion is??? Bigger???

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/08-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf

They are taking that, right from this release. Which is 7.137 trillion in debt over the FY 2010-2019.

According to Obama's own promises during the campaign he promised to cut the deficit in half. You do understand the difference between a deficit increase and a deficit decrease? Otherwise the numbers above should give you a hint. In other words Obama has to - before 2012 - decrease the accumulated deficit in billions:

You apparently don't understand deficit increase and deficit decrease. A decrease in a bugdet deficit means losing less money. It is that simple.

He said they they would decrease the FY 2009 deficit (which CBO current estimate is 1.587) by half. Meaning, anything less than a 793 Billion dollar deficit has accomplished that goal.

The deficit increase from 2010 to 2014 according to the White House: 3,767 trillion

You keep saying things like this. Which is completely incorrect terminology. That is not a "deficit" increase, that is a "debt" increase a deficit increase would imply that the deficit rose from FY 2009 to FY 2010, from the current CBO estimate of 1.587 trillion this year to a larger number next year.

2008: 459

2009: 1,752

2010: 1,171

2011: 912

2012: 581

581 would be way less than half of 1752. Which is exactly what the promise meant. That the deficit would be reduced by half. A deficit is an annual budget short fall.

-581 is more than 2X less than 1752.

If you even sourced your numbers here. The CBO doesn't have a baseline against the presidents yet for August, so I will wait for that.

It's ok to be wrong you know. Lampell amply pointed out I was using the wrong terminology in talking about Universal Health Care as opposed to Single Payer, I was using them interchangibly, and that's wrong.

I thanked him for the correction and moved on down the road.

In your dreams. Insuring 46 million people alone with let's say $2000 each year (which of course if impossible)

47 million X 2,000 to insure is 94 billion dollars...

and almost 200 billion is already gone

?? Are you implying $2,000 X 47 million is 200 billion dollars?

As an aside, you can look at the estimates in the link I attached. They are there. The spending outlay increase/tax revenue decrease between Obamas budget and the CBO budget is related to 2 things.

  1. Increase in spending to insure the uninsured
  2. Keeping Tax Cuts in place for those making under 250,000

I can list them for you...

  • 2010 + 223 Billion
  • 2011 + 91 Billion
  • 2012 + 149 Billion
  • 2013 + 176 Billion

Same source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10296/06-16-AnalysisPresBudget_forWeb.pdf

Those are the proposed increases over the CBO outline, which assumes starting the public option and paying for it.

The fact is that we have a shrinking economy, unemployment, are in a recession, and your president continue to push for a further expense in the shape of national health care while the deficit is increasing

We're not in a shrinking economy. You will see this when the NBER declares the recession was over this spring. The GDP contracted by approx 1% in Q2, during the last month or so (June or May) the economy was expanding.

while the deficit is increasing

For the last time. The deficit is not increasing. It is the debt that is increasing.

more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding.

I don't know where they are pulling that figure from. Current debt is over 10 trillion.

If you took the summation of deficits it would be even more, because the summation of deficits would exclude years we ran budget surpluses.

Look at any source, current debt to GDP is 60%-70% as sourced by the CIA, IMF, or OECD. Current GDP is one the order of 14 trillion, even if I went with the lowed end current debt would be 8.6 trillion...not 7.4 trillion.

It's over 10 trillion, that's the accepted figure.

If you summed all the deficits over the history of the US, it would be more than the current debt. Because like I said, the summation of deficits (negative) would result in a higher negative number because the overall debt includes budget surpluses (positive) over our history.

It's 100% incorrect to say 9 trillion dollars is more than the summation of our nations deficits over our entire history.

  • 1 vote
#1.18 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:33 PM EDT
Nicey-1026620

Nicey, thanks for posting the report.
However, I think you might be mistaken in how to read it. The 'change' in deficit you refer to (1.825 trillion in 2009 to 647 billion in 2013) is not a reduction in the overall deficit. All of those negative numbers are added together each year. For instance, the report says that the deficits will be $1.825 trillon, $1.432 trillion, $974 billion, $633 billlion, $647 billion, $726 billion, $763 billion, $873 billion, $927 billion, $999 billion, $1.163 trillion for the years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 respectively. So 1.432 trillion is the deficit for 2010, and then we add that to a deficit of 974 billion for the year of 2011, and so on, until we get a total defict of $9.139 trillion from 2010-2019. So the "reduction" from 1.825 trillion to 647 billion that you're referring to does not exist. You're supposed to ADD those numbers together, along with all the other negative numbers, in order to get the TOTAL deficit. So from now to 2013, according to this report, the deficit will increase from $1.825 trillion to $5.511 trillion (you get this by adding 1,825 billion + 1,432 billion + 974 billion +633 billion + 647 billion).
Nice try, thanks for playin'.
Next thing you know, they'll be trying to tell us that the deficit technically decreased since it became more negative....sorry, nerdy joke, had to say it :P

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm

Sigh...

What did he say? That the federal deficit would be reduced by half or more.

-1587/2 is still a negative number. That is exactly what it means. Currenty it needs to come in at -793 billion to meet that goal.

He did not say we would reduce the national debt. There is a difference, and I'm not reading it wrong.

The deficit is the difference between the money Government takes in, called receipts, and what the Government spends, called outlays, each year.

One way to think about the debt is as accumulated deficits.

Think about what was said. What was said was the federal budget deficit would be reduced by half.

He didn't say the national debt would be reduced by half.

The 'change' in deficit you refer to (1.825 trillion in 2009 to 647 billion in 2013) is not a reduction in the overall deficit.

No such thing exists. There is no overall deficit. It is called national debt or public debt perhaps even federal debt.

I'll note that I didn't address either of you like a child until you did so to me. Doing things like ADD, TOTAL in all caps.

I especially disagree with freestar because he feels the need to committ attacks on the POTUS by saying he's responsible for all our debt. Therefor, I point him to where he can find the information and it does not support his attacks.

He's repeating what everyone repeats without looking at the matter more. I do this many times myself, and thankfully there are people on the Vine who direct me to good information when needed.

    #1.19 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:43 PM EDT
    RyanMS

    Nicey, I don't think you got a chance to read my post (I think you ended up posting the second after I did), but read it. You'll see that the deficits listed are additive.


    581 would be way less than half of 1752. Which is exactly what the promise meant. That the deficit would be reduced by half. A deficit is an annual budget short fall.

    You're supposed to add 581 and 1752 together, along with all the numbers in between. We need to see some positive numbers each year in order to decrease the deficit! All we're seeing is negative numbers, which means that they just get tacked onto the budget deficit from the year before. I don't know how many different ways to explain this, but your argument is based on looking at one year's deficit vs. another year's deficit. You need to add all of the years together to get the TOTAL deficit.

      #1.20 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:50 PM EDT
      RyanMS

      I apologize for posting my comment so soon. I didn't realize you'd posted yours.
      I mean, if you want to nitpick then fine. Either way, it's the President's and Congress's fault that the public now has to take care of a $9 trillion debt/deficit/whatever you want to call it. You can cover it up with terminology, but it's still the same effect. And if you'll notice, the annual deficit starts INCREASING during 2013-2019 from 647 to 1163, so if you're using that argument, he might have cut the annual deficit in half for awhile, but then it starts rising again right after that.
      Call it what you want, all this spending (if you'll notice, the increased spending listed in the report came from OBAMA'S programs) has caused the 'public debt' to skyrocket. And basically, the public debt is just the sum of all the annual deficits and surpluses to date, so the public debt is a reflection of the deficit.
      I can't believe you have the nerve to nitpick so much so that you can support this guy! Just because he promised to decrease annual deficit by half (which, if we include the whole report, does not happen in 2019), doesn't mean that he improved things. My idea of decreasing the deficit would be to go from our current $2 trillion to $1 trillion TOTAL, but I guess that's asking too much.

        #1.21 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:00 PM EDT
        Nicey-1026620

        You're supposed to add 581 and 1752 together, along with all the numbers in between. We need to see some positive numbers each year in order to decrease the deficit! All we're seeing is negative numbers, which means that they just get tacked onto the budget deficit from the year before. I don't know how many different ways to explain this, but your argument is based on looking at one year's deficit vs. another year's deficit. You need to add all of the years together to get the TOTAL deficit.

        I read your whole post.

        Obama never said we will reduce the national debt by half. He said we would reduce the budget deficit by half.

        TOTAL deficit

        This is simple. There's no such thing as a total deficit. It does not exist. Look up the difference between deficits and debt.

        Reducing a budget deficit by half only require losing half as much money.

        ________________

        I really don't know how to make this more simple.

        Let's say I make the statement, "I Nicey will cut my monthly budget deficit by half next month"

        In January, I lost 200 dollars. In February, I lose 100 dollars. I have achieved my goal. I did not say, "I Nicey will reduce my debt by half."

        Deficits are added to debt. There's no such thing as a TOTAL deficit.

        • 1 vote
        #1.22 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:02 PM EDT
        Nicey-1026620

        I mean, if you want to nitpick then fine.

        What am I nitpicking? These are two very distinct accouting definitions. One thing is annual and one thing is the summation.

        Either way, it's the President's and Congress's fault that the public now has to take care of a $9 trillion debt/deficit/whatever you want to call it.

        It's not what I want to call it. This is how it is defined.

        You can cover it up with terminology, but it's still the same effect. And if you'll notice, the annual deficit starts INCREASING during 2013-2019 from 647 to 1163, so if you're using that argument, he might have cut the annual deficit in half for awhile, but then it starts rising again right after that.

        What was the discussion? Are you kidding me?

        It's simple. This man promised the government could reduce the deficit by half by the end of his first term.

        He didn't say anything else! He didn't say it's gonna be blah blah blah blah in 2019. This is one argument, will the federal budget deficit be cut in half by the end of his 1st term.

        Call it what you want, all this spending (if you'll notice, the increased spending listed in the report came from OBAMA'S programs) has caused the 'public debt' to skyrocket. And basically, the public debt is just the sum of all the annual deficits and surpluses to date, so the public debt is a reflection of the deficit.
        I can't believe you have the nerve to nitpick so much so that you can support this guy! Just because he promised to decrease annual deficit by half (which, if we include the whole report, does not happen in 2019), doesn't mean that he improved things. My idea of decreasing the deficit would be to go from our current $2 trillion to $1 trillion TOTAL, but I guess that's asking too much.

        Point out one comment where I've said "I support Obama" in this whole thread. In this particular string. Or really anywhere?

        I was countering an incorrect statement. Nothing more.

        Have the nerve to nitpick? You had the nerve to tell me I didn't understand the difference between deficit and debt when the shoe was on the other foot in reality. What did you say to me? "Nice try" like that's not condescending.

        Just because he promised to decrease annual deficit by half (which, if we include the whole report, does not happen in 2019),

        Once again, what was said.

        Obama said that he with the backing of the government would reduce the budget deficit by half by the end of his first term. This has nothing to do with 2019 or any other time frame.

        I'm not even defending him. I'm defending the accuracy of the statement. Since Freestar wanted to make such a large issue about his reckless spending and breaking the promise, etc I decided to put some facts out there with correct definitions.

        (if you'll notice, the increased spending listed in the report came from OBAMA'S programs) has caused the 'public debt' to skyrocket.

        Since not one FY (Fiscal Year) has even been completed your above statement isn't even possible.

        How can the public debt grow if the annual deficit for FY 2009 has yet to be recorded. The FY isn't over till September 30th.

        And I also listed his spending increases...

      • 2009 + 157 Billion
      • 2010 + 223 Billion
      • 2011 + 91 Billion
      • 2012 + 149 Billion
      • Those are his increases over the CBO baseline. How much is that in comparison to 10 trillion dollars?

        You should see a projection for someone extending the Bush tax cuts. It would make yearly deficits worse than this.

        Freestar said to me "Your" president. I didn't even vote. The assuming nature on vine is awful sometimes, I hope when I catch myself doing it I back up.

        • 1 vote
        #1.23 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:19 PM EDT
        usfreestar

        Budget

        Budget Totals in Billions of dollars:

        2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010-2014 2010-2019

        receipts

        2,524 2,186 2,381 2,713 3,081 3,323 3,500 3,675 3,856 4,042 4,234 4,446 14,997 35,250

        Outlays

        2,983 3,938 3,552 3,625 3,662 3,856 4,069 4,258 4,493 4,678 4,868 5,158 18,764 42,219

        Deficit

        459 1,752 1,171 912 581 533 570 583 637 636 634 712 3,767 6,969

        ...this is from the White House's own budget. You see how they add a deficit each year?

        See? that was easy and far shorter than your looooong posts to try and "explain" these simple numbers...;)

        Now I do know that each year the deficit becomes debt. But even the White House can see through common terminologies - and the fact is that they are talking about a DEFICIT, not debt.

        • 1 vote
        #1.24 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:55 PM EDT
        Nicey-1026620

        Now I do know that each year the deficit becomes debt. But even the White House can see through common terminologies - and the fact is that they are talking about a DEFICIT, not debt

        Yes, freestar. He explicity said they would cut the federal budget deficit in half. Not debt.

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/barack-obama/obama-promises-cut-deficit-half-four-years/

        This is what he promised. This is simple, and straight forward. It's misleading for the exact reason the article says it is. Because the FY 2009 budget deficit is gigantic.

        Cutting it in half is a very achievable goal in the FY 2013 budget 4 years after this budget.

        Deficit is not accumulated freestar. There's no discussion here. Read the links, and also google Deficit vs. Debt.

        Your final number does not represent a deficit - 6,969 it represents the total amount of 10 deficits accumulated over 10 years that is added to the national debt.

        President Obama proposed to cut a single year (FY 2009) budget deficit in half by the time budget year FY 2013 is recorded.

        Look at the above politifact link. It's explained easily.

          #1.25 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:57 PM EDT
          no-israeli-apartheid

          Adrian Thorn

          Yeah, Barack's a nice guy. I'd have a beer with him and all. I didn't vote for him though. Had we used a Socialist approach to this problem, we wouldn't have spent billions of dollars bailing out the banks.

          Better check your statement again. We have socialism for the rich, that's how wallstreet was bailed out.

          • 3 votes
          #1.26 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:03 PM EDT
          RyanMS

          Sorry I assumed that you supported him. A lot of people on here who defend Obama's promises do support him, so I lumped you into that category without thinking and I'm sorry about that.
          You're right about your definitions of debt and deficit. I guess I didn't understand where you were coming from before because I was looking at more of the long term picture than the annual one. I also didn't catch onto the fact at first that you were using the strict definitions of debt and deficit, so I apologize for jumping the gun on that one.
          I, personally, am not a big fan of terminologies like these because the same lack of money that is the annual deficit becomes the public debt. So as far as I'm concerned, the debt we have to pay as the public is the deficit (at least, it's our deficit).
          Also, the deficit in 2008 was $459 billion, so technically a deficit of $647 billion in 2013 isn't a decrease. Increasing the annual deficit by $1.366 trillion and then decreasing it by 45% 4 years later doesn't count as lowering the deficit. At the start of his term, the deficit was far lower than the predicted deficit for 2013. I don't know why I didn't use this argument before, but whatever.
          And the public debt my not have officially skyrocketed yet, but unless a miracle occurs then I'm assuming it's going to maintain its present course.
          Also, I was reading the CBO report under the chart titled "Estimate of the Effect of President's Budget on Baseline Deficits" and that's where the $9 trillion number comes from. Also, there's a line on there titled "Total Deficit Under Presiden'ts Proposals as Estimated by OMB", and that estimates an accumulated deficit of just over $7 trillion 10 years from now. So are they saying that Obama contributed directly to that $7 trillion public debt, or did he only partly contribute?

            #1.27 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:03 PM EDT
            Brandon-801865

            If only Shrub had not spent the projected $10 trillion surplus he inherited, on an illegal war and tax-cuts for the rich, we might just be breaking even from his 2007 Recession.

            • 2 votes
            #1.28 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:37 PM EDT
            Nicey-1026620

            Also, I was reading the CBO report under the chart titled "Estimate of the Effect of President's Budget on Baseline Deficits" and that's where the $9 trillion number comes from.

            I also don't mean to come off as sounding callous, It's just a simple fact. Nothing more nothing less. I get put in my place plenty of times.

            It's one of those promises a politicians puts in the bank. Well, of course you can reduce the annual budget deficit by half. It's 1.587 trillion dollars this year according to CBO estimate, +157 billion for additional spending under POTUS budget, that's 1.744 trillion dollars...is it really hard to reduce that number by half?

            Also, the deficit in 2008 was $459 billion, so technically a deficit of $647 billion in 2013 isn't a decrease. Increasing the annual deficit by $1.366 trillion and then decreasing it by 45% 4 years later doesn't count as lowering the deficit. At the start of his term, the deficit was far lower than the predicted deficit for 2013. I don't know why I didn't use this argument before, but whatever.

            The politifact link I posted. He specifically made this promise in what March of this year? He's referring to the FY 2009 Deficit.

            Also, I was reading the CBO report under the chart titled "Estimate of the Effect of President's Budget on Baseline Deficits" and that's where the $9 trillion number comes from. Also, there's a line on there titled "Total Deficit Under Presiden'ts Proposals as Estimated by OMB", and that estimates an accumulated deficit of just over $7 trillion 10 years from now. So are they saying that Obama contributed directly to that $7 trillion public debt, or did he only partly contribute?

            Not sure where the 7 trillion figure is coming from. I just go off the June CBO comparison to the Presidents.

            http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10296/06-16-AnalysisPresBudget_forWeb.pdf

            The new one:

            http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/08-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf

            Incorporates current law. The CBO projection jumped from 4.4 trillion to 7.1 trillion based on some of the tax breaks that are going to be extended, and outlays expected.

            There are several things, like reducing the alternative minimum tax, the Making Work Pay Credit, etc. All of which reduce tax revenues. One hopes they expand economic growth as offsetting.

            Here's a disturbing paragraph from the 8-25 release:

            Over the long term (beyond the 10-year baseline projection period), the budget remains on an unsustainable path. Unless changes are made to current policies, the nation will face a growing demand for budgetary resources caused by rising health care costs and the aging of the population. Continued large deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt over time would reduce long-term economic growth by lowering national saving and investment relative to what would otherwise occur, causing productivity and wage growth to gradually slow.

            Last year, outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined accounted for about 9 percent of GDP. Outstripping the growth of GDP, spending for those programs is expected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years, totaling nearly 12 percent of GDP by 2019. Under longterm projections recently published by CBO, such spending would continue to rise under current laws and policies and could total 17 percent of GDP by 2035.2

            If outlays for those programs reached that level, federal spending would be well above its historical percentage of GDP. Unless revenues were increased correspondingly, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly, posing a threat to the economy. Alternatively, if taxes were raised to finance the rising spending, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. Some combination of significant changes in benefit programs and other spending and tax policies will be necessary in order to attain long-term fiscal balance.

            In 2001 debt was 33% of GDP, that's our national debt. It's projected to get pretty high over the next 10 years.

            Regardless of how you feel about anything...we had an excellent shot even with the 2001 recession to restore fiscal order, and it's very possible we've permenantly blown it.

            Objectively, the current POTUS had nothing to do with the decision to go to a war that's going to cost above 1 trillion dollars, the expanded government from 2001-2009, most of this recession (which started in December 2007, but really began its path when home prices peaked in the summer 2005).

            I'm going to wait a bit to see what he really bears out. And again, this is one guy. We're all culpable as Americans, as a nation, etc.

            But from the above statement, if we don't do something. We're f*****. More specifically my Generation Y is near assuredly f*****. I turn SS age around 2050.

            And you saw what they said. You can only fix this a couple ways. Raise taxes, Strip the Benefits, Cut Federal Spending. We don't have a lot of elegant solutions here.

            We had options in 2001. That's no longer the case. With this steep recession, 2 wars, an aging population, rising medical expenses, etc. It's gonna come down to brute force.

            Unfortunately, I don't think the American Public can will themselves in one direction with a unanimous voice, so we need the government to "make" us. Hey, I hate the government, but they are the only one far reaching enough to universally change what needs changed.

              #1.29 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:59 PM EDT
              Nicey-1026620

              If only Shrub had not spent the projected $10 trillion surplus he inherited, on an illegal war and tax-cuts for the rich, we might just be breaking even from his 2007 Recession.

              In fairness, the CBO projection was based upon the growth we had seen in the 90s up to 2000. A lot of the late growth was fueled unsustainably, which made those budget surplus projections look good, but they weren't all that real.

              Nothing he can do about the recession, it's roots started in March 2000 when the NAS crashed. However, there is some evidence he could have been a little better versed leading up to 9/11.

              How flagged were terrorist reports? I mean, we really didn't have the working agency to deal with it. We (even the public) kind of assumed it wasn't possible.

              But 9/11 definitely was the nail in the coffin for that recession. It made lots of things worse, resulted in war, led to going fool hardy into another war.

              Right off the top. The fact that the military budget expanded from 300 billion to 600 billion in his watch is bad. At 700 billion dollar in FY 2009, it's insane. It should be half that.

                #1.30 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:06 PM EDT
                no-israeli-apartheid

                Nicey-1026620

                Nothing he can do about the recession, it's roots started in March 2000 when the NAS crashed. However, there is some evidence he could have been a little better versed leading up to 9/11.

                How flagged were terrorist reports? I mean, we really didn't have the working agency to deal with it. We (even the public) kind of assumed it wasn't possible.

                This isn't true at all. Top dogs in the FBI squashed any further investigations after clinton left office. Clinton had daily updates on terrorism and even assembled a terrorism task force ebfore leaving. Bush and company dismissed all of it in favor of extorting the american public by controlling the distribution of energy (electric, gas and oil).

                http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

                http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/script.html

                MICHAEL SHEEHAN, Chief Counterterrorism, State Dept. '98-'01:

                I watched with dismay as the issue of the USS Cole completely disappeared from the U.S. scene, completely -- again, in a new administration. It was just not on their agenda. Clearly, it was not on the agenda of the Congress, the media or anyone else. Again, it went into oblivion.

                .

                .

                .

                .

                INTERVIEWER: It's been reported that was Tom Pickard.

                VALERIE JAMES: That's who John felt it was, Tom Pickard. And John really never knew. He was out to get John for a long time, and John never really knew why.

                NARRATOR: At the time, Tom Pickard was interim director of the FBI. Now retired, Pickard would not agree to an interview with FRONTLINE. He was, however, quoted in Esquire magazine saying, "The briefcase was a big deal. It was not so much that he lost it, he shouldn't have had those materials with him in the first place. Losing the briefcase just added to it. Let's just say it was not John O'Neill's finest hour."

                FRAN TOWNSEND: I think the cost, personally, had become so high for John, the New York Times article, the outstanding issue about the missing bag -- there had become such a personal cost. And I think he had sustained so many blows. You know, he would say, "How many body blows does somebody have to take?" I think it had become too much. It was just time for him. He just didn't want to take it anymore.

                NARRATOR: At the end of August 2001, Agent O'Neill ended his 25-year career with the FBI. He was 49 years old.

                • 2 votes
                #1.31 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:27 PM EDT
                Ferrari5k

                I just went throgh CBOs Spreadsheet and I think we all forgot we now already have a Debt of 11 Trillion and Obama's Spending Spree will bring it up to at least 20 Trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, it's worse than we thought. If interst on the 11 Trillion dollar debt is now 500 Billion, you can imagine just the cost of servicing the Debt being well over a Trillion a year (!) in 2019.

                Just paying our Interest will cost every person almost 5,000 in Income Tax before we pay for anything like Medicare, Soc Sec, Defense, Operating the Govt etc.

                We may have to take a page out of Hitlers Play-Book and march on Europe and steal their Riches just to stay alive. Any Ideas, I hate Paris in Winter?

                  #1.32 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:25 PM EDT
                  Simplistic Reality

                  Here is one thought. How about we stop giving countries around the World billions of dollars in aid... bribes.. or whatever. Time to take care of ourselfs at home first before we run around the planet and take care of others. Not being cold.. just being realistic. Would you feed someone else's family first before you fed yours? Who would come running to our rescue when we go bankrupt as a nation?

                  • 5 votes
                  #1.33 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:57 AM EDT
                  Fellow NoName

                  Here is one thought. How about we stop giving countries around the World billions of dollars in aid... bribes.. or whatever.

                  Simplistic Reality

                  Because that would be racist! *sarcasm-a-heavy*

                  • 2 votes
                  #1.34 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:21 AM EDT
                  Adrian Thorn

                  "Go rough up a liberal African-American scholar in Massachusettes if you want that beer with BarryO bad enough."

                  Well I would, but I hear there is a lot of conservatives doing that these days. I rather not wait in line...

                  • 1 vote
                  #1.35 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:42 AM EDT
                  Nicey-1026620

                  I just went throgh CBOs Spreadsheet and I think we all forgot we now already have a Debt of 11 Trillion and Obama's Spending Spree will bring it up to at least 20 Trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, it's worse than we thought. If interst on the 11 Trillion dollar debt is now 500 Billion, you can imagine just the cost of servicing the Debt being well over a Trillion a year (!) in 2019.

                  Just paying our Interest will cost every person almost 5,000 in Income Tax before we pay for anything like Medicare, Soc Sec, Defense, Operating the Govt etc.

                  We may have to take a page out of Hitlers Play-Book and march on Europe and steal their Riches just to stay alive. Any Ideas, I hate Paris in Winter?

                  The CBO is saying debt is much less than that. I don't know where they are getting the figure from, but they are claiming it is 7.4 trillion or so...

                  I personally don't see how that is possible, unless they are counting the SS Trust against the debt in some weird accounting double speak.

                  To the best of my knowledge interest debt is around 250-300 billion dollars. Mainly because it's issued way below 5%, that means it's around 2-3% interest.

                  And fortunately all this new debt was mainly issued at near 0% and even negative (people were paying interest to the treasury for the right to own a T-Bill). So there is little interest on it.

                  The real concern is as with that chilling analysis I posted from the CBO. That what we are facing is near inescapable without a significant change. They expect medical expenses and aging to do us in, it will go from about 9% of GDP and double by around 2035.

                  To give us an idea, tax revenues are only around 17-18% of GDP. At that point social welfare costs alone will wipe out all our tax revenues.

                  As a young person, that's flippin scary to me.

                    #1.36 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:32 AM EDT
                    marcv-1026579

                    Bill -

                    Dude, you need to throw some cold water on your face. First of all, get off the liberal partisan band wagon and realize that is not a dem vs. repub thing!! It’s our elected officials overall. You liberals always forget that the Dems have had control of congress for the last several years if you want to start pointing fingers.

                    This is about greed and corruption. Our career politicians are in this for themselves and their Wall Street pals. The Federal Reserve (which is a criminal organization of financial elitist) is more than happy to continue to control our tax money for their self gain. Bush and Obama are mere puppets placed in position with their inner circle running the will of the central bank!

                    Read and learn how your country works!! Blaming things on which ever party is in the white house or which party is in the House and Senate, is really a waste of valuable energy! They are all screwing up! They are lawyers, not business men and women for the most part. You do not continue to spend and spend when the credit card is severely maxed OUT!

                    Answer me this! Are you ok with how the stimulus bill is being invested/spent? Are you ok with all the back room deals (pork barreling) that is taking place without the transperancy that was promised? This is a very simple question you need to ask yourself. Is it really doing what you thought it was going to do! And By the way; You are incorrect on your numbers! Just with what Obama has borrowed and spent - You can add up all the debt from day one to Bush leaving office and Obama and the Democratic congress just smoked them in less than a year!

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.37 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:09 PM EDT
                    Roy Batty

                    Here is one thought. How about we stop giving countries around the World billions of dollars in aid... bribes.. or whatever. Time to take care of ourselves at home first before we run around the planet and take care of others

                    Amen to that. Add to it:

                    Withdraw participation in NATO (a cold war relic made obsolete by both the end of the cold war and the creation of the EU,)

                    Send a bill to the United Nations for all the blood and treasure we've spent on their behalf,

                    Increase import tariffs for the US to parity with the tariff levels enjoyed by the exporting countries (including US companies that have moved production abroad,)

                    Tax "religious contributions" that are collected here but sent to the Vatican or directly support the maintenance of other religious administrative centers.

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.38 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:35 PM EDT
                    Nicey-1026620

                    You liberals always forget that the Dems have had control of congress for the last several years if you want to start pointing fingers.

                    Have words lost all meaning?

                    I'm all for objectivity, but I hate it when posts decend into "you liberals, you conservatives, etc"

                    What does several mean? Get back to me on how many years congress has been under Democrat control.

                    You can add up all the debt from day one to Bush leaving office and Obama and the Democratic congress just smoked them in less than a year!

                    You say it's all of them...then take sides..?

                    I pretty much just respond to statements most of the time. Your above is completely incorrect.

                    You're saying the debt created from budget deficits FY 2000 - FY 2008 is equivalent to the deficit that will be added to the debt in FY 2009?

                    Especially because you're already failing to realize how they mark Fiscal Years in regards to the budget. FY 2009 is from October 1, 2008 to September 30 2009.

                    So now the 700 Billion from TARP is somehow from the current admin? Or the deficit accumulated from October 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009?

                    I've come to the conclusion that I am my own person, about 90-95% of the government is incapable of acting, Corporations have sold most of our future, and those who controlled 90% of the wealth wanted it to happen.

                    Frankly, what to do about that, I'm not sure. We're all responsible as citizens. Because we're certainly not standing up with a voice and changing it.

                    And we're just as bad. We want to talk about irresponsible government spending, but look at consumer debt. Consumers are in more debt than the government is. Why should I listen to any of these irresponsible clowns?

                      #1.39 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:02 PM EDT
                      corpspongovDeleted
                      The Mayan Factor

                      Is it 9 trillion or 10 trillion I am confused.?.

                      I can wait until we end up on those "feed the poor country tv programs". I am so excited!!!

                      I say you know wait mom and dad you really @!$%#ed up with our social security and I will pay each year knowing I will not see a cent.

                      However!!! It will be a long time in hell before I like my children pay for my health care ten fold in the years to come.

                      I do not give a @!$%# about health care. If I get cancer so be it, if I have a disease so be it. Life her is really not that important to destroy ALL the HAPPINESS of my children. I would rather enjoy a small part and leave than be born a slave to the government!! Welcome back pre-1865. Please help us Lincoln!

                        #1.41 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:23 PM EDT
                        BrianAgness

                        I can wait until we end up on those "feed the poor country tv programs". I am so excited!!!

                        Actually, the new ChildFund ads say that you an donate your money to children in America. It's one of the countries you can choose to help. The only country you can donate to in Europe through ChildFund is Belarus...

                        http://www.childfund.org/places/

                          #1.42 - Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:12 PM EDT
                          The Mayan Factor

                          Actually the BBBS, March of Dimes, Boys and Girls Club, Camp Still Meadows, Ronald McDoanlsd House, and My Church suits my needs. At least here in America.

                            #1.43 - Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:14 AM EDT
                            Bill N..

                            Kolby-1075823 - You'd better pat Obama on the butt and ask him to fart - its the only way you'll ever get any air. :P

                            • 1 vote
                            #1.44 - Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:31 PM EDT
                            Reply
                            corpspongovDeleted
                            More Than Happy

                            In other news, the economy is recovering thanks to Obama's stimulus package. We'll be better able to pay-off the debt if we can return to sustainable prosperity.

                            • 4 votes
                            Reply#3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:43 PM EDT
                            tom sevigny

                            ...the economy is recovering thanks to Obama's stimulus package.

                            Maybe in a parellel universe where up is down and vice-versa.

                            The bankers seem to be doing well that got the stimulus money. They are rolling cigars out of Benjamins right about now.

                            • 13 votes
                            #3.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 PM EDT
                            RyanMS

                            At least by burning Benjamins they might help lower inflation by decreasing the amount of money out there...but we're screwed either way, so it doesn't matter.

                            • 8 votes
                            #3.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:06 PM EDT
                            tom sevigny

                            Good one Ryan. Obama's got money to burn mf ers.

                            • 4 votes
                            #3.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:43 PM EDT
                            Reply
                            tom sevigny

                            This is just a long-winded article that can be summed up by saying that:

                            1. President Obama has no idea what he is doing. It is completely obvious now.

                            2. President Obama told us that if the stimulus passed that it would keep the national unemployment rate from reaching 8%. At the time it was 7.6%. It is now approaching 10%. WTF

                            3. President Obama's administration miscalculated on the National debt projections by $ 2 trillion. That is $2,000,000,000,000. WTF to the second power.

                            4. Although many of us who were around during the Carter and Reagan years saw President Reagan inherit a worse economy with 13% inflation, 20+% interest rates and double-digit unemployment. He cut taxes from 70% down to 30% and cut spending. Revenue increased by an astounding rate. The result was 20 million jobs created. John F. Kennedy acted in a similar fashion 20 years prior with somewhat the same effect. Barack Obama is doing the complete opposite expecting the same result. What the hell is he smoking in the Oval Office?

                            • 19 votes
                            Reply#4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:45 PM EDT
                            Nicey-1026620

                            and cut spending

                            ??

                            No he didn't. Reagan hugely increased the budget a couple times.

                            • Supply siding did work in increasing overall tax revenues by cutting income taxes on the top tier. The issue is at the same time, they vastly expanded the budget.
                            • In 1986/1987 the increased the social security tax, and instead of instituting a policy of saving that money (and no president since has corrected this) they again, expanded the budget.

                            Look at % Debt to GDP, it starts to rise beginning with the Reagan admin.

                            You can't lower income taxes to 0 and expect the government to keep running. There is a point where the Laffer curve is simply not going to increase tax revenues by decreasing taxes.

                            And that's really not the point. The point is to control spending. Which regardless of who is in office appears to be ever increasing because no president will take on automatic increases, the military industrial complex, or simply cutting some unnecessary spending and putting it to better use.

                            • 6 votes
                            #4.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:00 PM EDT
                            tom sevigny

                            Nobody is advocating lowering federal income tax to zero without a type of value added tax without shutting dowm all government except our military.

                            Remember who was in Congress during the Reagan years and how much miltary and domestic spending was occurring at the time and it was a concerted effort.

                            • 4 votes
                            #4.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:40 PM EDT
                            Chuck1968

                            If the Republicans put their money where their mouth is they could shrink the cost of government AND the size of government by 1/3 just by simply resigning their positions.

                            • 2 votes
                            #4.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:39 PM EDT
                            CliffDogg

                            Remember who was in Congress during the Reagan years and how much miltary and domestic spending was occurring at the time and it was a concerted effort.

                            oh, that is classic...blame Obama for all this debt, but blame the Democratic congress for the debt under Reagan. I'd love to live in that world where twisted logic bends facts and everything is so black and white and somehow my side is always right.

                              #4.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:40 PM EDT
                              tom sevigny

                              Reagan's policies and their effect on private industry created 20,000,000 jobs. He cut taxes just like Democratic President John F. Kennedy did twenty years before.

                              Let's see what Obama is doing besides boasting of creating 145,000 jobs while our economy has continued to shed three times that number per month since he took office despite his spending which has quadrupled the deficit. If this guy thinks that what he has been doing is going to create jobs he is a first class maroon.

                              Obama with a Congressional Majority in the House and Senate lead by liberal Democrats is what will someday be looked back on as "A PERFECT STORM". Our economy is a fishing trawler heading towards disaster if this guy does not smarten up.

                              • 6 votes
                              #4.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:10 PM EDT
                              blll

                              Reagan also increased the Federal Debt by 900%. Obama has yet to increase it by 18%.

                              All you alarmists, so upset that we elected a black man President, need to back off and let him do something before you get upset.

                              • 4 votes
                              #4.6 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:10 AM EDT
                              tom sevigny

                              Flemish Cap

                              • 2 votes
                              #4.7 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:38 AM EDT
                              Nicey-1026620

                              Remember who was in Congress during the Reagan years and how much miltary and domestic spending was occurring at the time and it was a concerted effort.

                              I'm not opposed to some conservative ideas.

                              But we've, in fact, lowered taxes too far. The government has become beholden to about 1% of the population that is filthy rich.

                              How else could 2/3s of all corporations pay no income tax at all. And the average income (despite having something like 2.5-3 trillion in annual profit) tax for US corporations is something like 10-15% when the rate is 35%?

                              US Businesses pay less in income taxes than US workers do in income taxes. By a mile.

                              How else could millions, and millions at the top tier rate pay a lower rate than me in the second quintile.

                              Unless the situation was mainly controlled and in their favor.

                              But comeon...The mantra is small government, balance the budget, and wholesome values. Complete control of the government in all 3 branches didn't yield any of that.

                              Say what you will, but they had a chance to prove it, and they didn't. If the current ones don't prove it, I'll say the same exact thing about them.

                              • 3 votes
                              #4.8 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:56 AM EDT
                              Fellow NoName

                              so upset that we elected a black man President

                              There it is! ding ding!

                              • 4 votes
                              #4.9 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:20 PM EDT
                              Ferrari5k

                              Nicey your numbers all all wrong, we have some of the highest Corp income in the world, over 40% when you add the State tax. Corps don't make Trillioins Each, and Corp pay billions to employees and stock holders who also pay Income tax and also make the Economy go round and round. it is they wjho gave us the best standard of living in the worlds history. It is Corps that pay about half the Govts Bills and employ everyone just about everyone. Govt only sucks up and wastes wealth without creating any. You should kiss Corpoarte America's Kish.

                              • 1 vote
                              #4.10 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:36 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              tom sevigny

                              Somebody just for kicks divide $2 Trillion by 300 million people.

                              • 7 votes
                              Reply#5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:51 PM EDT
                              Kavidog22

                              ....I would, but I fear that i may shed a tear and embarass myself at the results.....

                              • 3 votes
                              #5.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:35 PM EDT
                              tom sevigny

                              I feel your pain...

                              • 2 votes
                              #5.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:37 PM EDT
                              Fellow NoName

                              My adding machine won't let me put that high of a number in there!

                              • 5 votes
                              #5.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:39 PM EDT
                              vol fan in chatt, tn

                              And that's really not the point. The point is to control spending.

                              finally, something we can ALL agree on! Sorry it went in the wrong place - this is in response to 4.1.

                              • 4 votes
                              #5.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:40 PM EDT
                              tom sevigny

                              LOL you better find a calculator with scientific notation or you can go grab a beer and cry in it.

                              • 3 votes
                              #5.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:41 PM EDT
                              Fellow NoName

                              I'll stick with the beer. Miller Lite was on sale $11 a case! Used to drink the good stuff, but nowadays, that is the good stuff for me.

                              • 3 votes
                              #5.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:42 PM EDT
                              tom sevigny

                              I'm a Guiness drinker. It has gone up in price.

                              I don't drink all that much.

                              Happier days were BO, or before Obama. Hopefully we don't find ourselves doing what Ronald Reagan warned could happen in one generation, that is sitting in a rocking chair telling our grandchildren what it was like to live in a free country.

                              • 5 votes
                              #5.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:48 PM EDT
                              blll

                              Just for kicks, divide 71 trillion by 300,000,000. That's the Federal Debt plus Unfunded Federal Obligations, which the Republican Presidents have saddled us with over the last 30 years.

                              $236,000 for every man woman and child.

                              • 1 vote
                              #5.8 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:13 AM EDT
                              Evil 1

                              Tom sevigny:

                              $2,000,000,000,000.00/300,000,000= $6,666.6667. The '666' numbers sure point to the truth of this administration, glad I'm not superstitious. I also find it interesting that Obama and his administration refer to this increase in the deficit as and oversight on their part. This oversight will cost the American people $547,945,205.48 (yes, that is million) per day for the next ten years. That is just the Principal it does not include any interest. Damn, I would hate to see what they would consider a major mistake if this was and oversight. I just can't wait (truthfully I can) for the oversight that will occur if they accomplish forcing their health care reform through. The $2,000,000,000,000.00 will seem like chump change.

                              • 3 votes
                              #5.9 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:39 AM EDT
                              Ferrari5k

                              Republican? Ha! Your Boys FDR and Johnson Good intentions and "keep us in power" politics are to blame, plus Republicans never had control of Congress until Clinton took office and we did GREAT then. Oh yeah, That was US, not Clinton.

                              During the '64-65 Medicare Debate, The Right made the argument that Medicare would become unsustainable once the Boomers retired because by then The Dems would have expanded the programs entitlements into the hundreds of billions and there wouldn't be enough workers to pay fot it.

                              The Right wanted Workers to have access to Mandatory Retirement Medical Savings accounts and put the Payroll Medicare Deductions into that instead of the Regular Income Tax accounts knowing the DEMS would just spend it immediately anyway.

                              The Left countered and showed that in the year 1990, it would only cost 12 Billion counting Inflation etc and there would be plenty of time to put money into a "Lock Box" instead of General Tax Revenue. It never happened.

                              In 1990 Medicare cost 126 Billion due to expansion and the Program was on it's way to becoming unsustainable, which is now half a Trillion per year.

                              Now Obama needs another Medicare-Like Payroll Tax to make up for his spending spree and the only quick ways are Health Care Reform Payroll Tax, Cap and Trade Revenue Tax from us, and a new National Value Added Sales Tax.

                              We are all screwed thanks to the Dems Euro Socialism, anti-Business, Pro-Welfare, mentality. A look at what we spend the majority of our money on makes it obvious that all these Social Programs that were devised to redistribute and destroy the Workings Man's chance at wealth are now destroying the nation and now I'm to the point that I'm almost glad. Those of us that have paid into a system for 35 years with a supposed guarantee we would get our money back have a reason to be both pissed and now unbelieving in this NEW supposed Health Care contract. No more BS promises from a man with a history of "un-truthfulness".

                              The Left deserves the financial misery they've caused by creating a giant Federal Government to "take care of them". What a bunch babies.

                              • 1 vote
                              #5.10 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:21 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              Wildcard-781265

                              With the deficit going to 9 trillion more than expected, S S for the elderly going down, people still losing jobs left and right, how do they get a “Recession” out of this?

                              Compare it to the mid thirties, sure people make more money today, but they spend more too and on the same things they bought back then, it is not a “Recession” it is a depression, a recession is a slump that turns around, this is only getting worse.

                              We have a president who has done more damage in 8 months than all the others in the past 15 years put together.

                              He has printed the people of this country into poverty for the next 100 years, he has lied to us, ignored our wishes, pushed his agenda down our thoughts, given our money to people who have already shown they cannot operate a business in a profitable manner, and then has the gumption to say, “Well, gee it was worse than we thought it was”

                              Mr. Obama, you have bankrupted the country with your “Spending” that according to you was going to “Turn us around” and the “Change” you spoke of has only been to change for the worse what was already bad.

                              At least be man enough to stand up and say to the people, “I goofed, I made a horrible mistake and miss calculated everything, and I need your help to get it right” that would be the Manley thing to do, but then you are a politician, and that simply means you’re a crook, a liar, and a thief.

                              You and congress set up there and take hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries and benefits from the American people while they struggle to survive day by day, and the sad part is you don’t care, you have no sympathy with the common man/woman.

                              You are all no better than a bunch of blood sucking leaches, you have no shame nor compassion, none of you work for the American people, you work for your selves, it’s “get all you can, can all you get, set on the rest and poison it” with you people.

                              Congratulations to our Government, you have destroyed what the founding Fathers worked, fought and died to start, I sure hope all of you in Washington sleep very well tonight, after all the people are doing all the worrying, they have to pay for your “Oversights” not you.

                              We can’t even ask God to help us, He has been thrown out of everything in this country from the government and schools and public places, all we can say is now is “God have Mersey on us”

                              • 12 votes
                              Reply#6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:04 PM EDT
                              Bo Cephus

                              Wildcard you've just split an arrow "WHAT A MARKSMAN". Just so you know all the news stations say Americans spirits are soaring with this great economy.Who on God's green earth believes the news stations or the politicians ? WHO ? Liars all..

                              • 3 votes
                              #6.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:18 PM EDT
                              Dreama

                              Somebody just for kicks divide $2 Trillion by 300 million people.

                              YIKES!!!

                              • 3 votes
                              #6.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:30 PM EDT
                              Kavidog22

                              ....well said Wildcard.....agreed!

                              • 1 vote
                              #6.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:37 PM EDT
                              Roy Batty

                              Somebody just for kicks divide $2 Trillion by 300 million people.

                              $6666.66 per person. Jeez.

                              • 2 votes
                              #6.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:54 PM EDT
                              usfreestar

                              666

                              lol

                              • 4 votes
                              #6.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:22 PM EDT
                              Steve-485394

                              Wildcard, and those of you pontificating about the news on the increase in the federal deficit of over 10 trillion over the next ten years, you need a time out!

                              Take an economics class, take basic math, and take political science too. If George Bush had been allowed to stay in office(heaven forbid) the deficit would still be as bad as what is being thrown down Obama's throat. The economy was broken, broken by greed, lack of oversight, lack of regulations, and a former president who could not explain economics to save his life. The rampant overdrive the economy has been in for the past 8 years with money being drained to pay for a war, we did not want(at least those who saw through his falsehoods) and certainly did not need. No, I am not talking about the AlQuaida in Afghanistan fight, we needed to go after Bin Laden. Oh, that is right, we took our eye off of the ball and went instead to Iraq, those never found(that would be never, not few, not any) Weapons of Mass Destruction, we went in with no plan, nothing to save the oldest museum in the world with artifacts lost forever, only to make sure we got all of the paperwork from the oil ministers building, the looting, the loss to humanity, oh well!

                              Ok, back to economics, that would be econ 101 where you learn the simple truth about guns vs butter, a lesson learned the hard way by Russia when they went into Afghanistan. You cannot continue to drain the economy of any country, even this great nation of the United States without an effect. You cannot spend billions monthly and not have an effect on the economy. You cannot look the other direction when regulations are being ignored, oversight is non existent, and banks and financial institutions are allowed to peddle mortgages packaged as solid investments to the community without proper principle to cover the debt in the package. Derivatives, collateralized (without proper collateral) mortgage obligations and others made up by the financial institutions in collusion with the mega banks were putting crap on the street without regard to the bubble in the market they were creating.

                              The economy comes almost to a stop, the tax revenue slows to a drip, factories close, even more than those taken already offshore by the greed of corporations seeking cheep labor and tax breaks giving them even larger profits but giving the American worker the shove.

                              My God, my goodness, go ask some economic professors at a local university, the tide was moving and moved for over the past eight years or so. Guess you would blame the new life guard on the beach when you got hit with a tidal wave, I bet.

                              We need, ideas, we need to get this economy going again, we need to put workers back to work, factories back on line. We don't need the crap coming from the naysayers and those willing to point to the new guy and say, see what you did!

                              Grow up! Just pray that the social security and medicare that so many depend upon can continue for them before they die. Change, you bet we need change, we need someone just like Obama who is willing to take the crap, but be honest with America about the mess we have allowed ourselves to get in. We need to rebuild. You sound like the guy who is yelling to me to get off the road, all the while forgetting that if you had not blind sided me in the rear end, I could still drive my car. We need to get this economy going, without the stimulus, chaos would have come, you think we are close to a depression, we would be in one heck of one without it.

                              Be an American first, offer solutions, not rabid comments.

                              • 5 votes
                              #6.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:25 PM EDT
                              brianm-329

                              OK! one solution to the electrical power problem and jobs.

                              1. start building nuclear power plants...

                              • it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs (good paying jobs), We need at least 10 facilities. This effort alone will create work for 20 or more years and help wean us off of oil and coal. the money spent in the bailout of just on bank or AIG would be more than enough.
                              • 3 votes
                              #6.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:54 PM EDT
                              tom sevigny

                              666. LOL you nuts figured it out. I wondered if someone would actually do the math.

                              Roy and USfreestar. You two crack me up!

                              • 4 votes
                              #6.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:44 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              BKER1492

                              Owing an entire years pay on your credit card. Just another day in liberal land.

                              • 9 votes
                              Reply#7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:07 PM EDT
                              Chuck1968

                              Owing an entire years pay on a credit card without ever intending to pay it back...just another day in conservative land.

                              and then,of course, in conservative land, you just claim bankruptcy and claim that bill isn't being paid by taxpayers.

                              • 1 vote
                              #7.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:42 PM EDT
                              One Miscreant

                              Oh they'll make interest payments.

                                #7.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:45 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                Bighorn

                                We are bankrupt, overdrawn, out of money, on the ropes, in deep doo doo, one foot on a banana peel over the grand canyon, HIV positive and the heart beat just flat lined. I hope you all have your funeral arrangements made including the money to plant you in a cardboard box in your back yard. Have a nice day.

                                • 2 votes
                                Reply#8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:15 PM EDT
                                Kavidog22

                                .....perhaps you could save a a buck or two by not purchasing that cardboard box (imported from China made with OUR recycled cardboard) and just use your printed money and mud to build a 'cask' of sorts.....

                                • 1 vote
                                #8.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:39 PM EDT
                                tom sevigny

                                Bighorn, you should change your name to "LUCKY" just for the sheer irony.

                                • 2 votes
                                #8.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:51 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                Wildcard-781265

                                "Cut Social Security benefits/ages/whatever (Or find a way to lower medical costs)"

                                They already have, and thats the money our ELDERLY try to live on, if the government can give trilliond of dollars to broke banks, automakers, and Wall Street, they sure as hell can help those people who have spent their whole life paying into SS.

                                • 6 votes
                                Reply#9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:17 PM EDT
                                blll

                                Its a ponzi scheme though. The elderly actually pay into it less than the amount that they eventually take out.

                                Whoever invented social security should be sharing a cell with Madoff.

                                • 4 votes
                                #9.1 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:14 AM EDT
                                Wildcard-781265

                                do the math, they do not pay in less than they take out, every pay check SS takes out money, you have to to pay in until you are 67 to get the full binifits, then they tax you on that. You would have to live to be around 220 years old to get the money you paid in back.

                                • 2 votes
                                #9.2 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:10 AM EDT
                                Han_SoloDeleted
                                Fellow NoName

                                Its a ponzi scheme though. The elderly actually pay into it less than the amount that they eventually take out.

                                Agreed, but unfortunately, FDR is dead.

                                • 4 votes
                                #9.4 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:21 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                Fellow NoName

                                Just curious, at what point do we need to be in the hole before anything happens? It seems our politicians are just playing monopoly, but using play credit cards instead of play money. If I can't pay my employees, I go out of business, yet there is plenty of money to pay our government officials.

                                Can someone help me out on this? :/

                                • 8 votes
                                Reply#10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:31 PM EDT
                                blll

                                Until the issue becomes big enough in the voters minds to swing votes.

                                • 1 vote
                                #10.1 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:15 AM EDT
                                corpspongovDeleted
                                Dennis the Engineer-1297020

                                where were you people when cheny and bush where causing all this. remember over the past forty years the dems have only been in charge 12 of those years with the republicans in charge 28 of the last forty years also the top 4 highest debts in history have been under republicans and the largest growth of goverment has been under republicans the dems only had 4 years of James Carter and 8 of Bill Clinton the only two times in the past forty years that the debt went down was when carter and clinton were in office the only time the buget was ballanced and had a surplus was under Clinton remember when clinton tried to get health care reform and the republicans stoped it from passing then well we cant wait any longer and if just some of you would actuly read the bills you would find its not any of the things your claming it is for all those people that work hard that thier companys cant aford to give insurance it will be a low cost alternitive along with taking the power away from the insurance companys and givess it back to you and your doctor and the taxes to pay for come from the rich that we keep bailing out so what if the rich have to pay 10% more now they will be even with the rest of us look if you make under $100k a year this is going to be a good thing the premiums I pay $450 and the company I work for pays $1,050 adds up to $1,500 a month thats just too much and it gose up every year thats a house payment who do you want in charge of you health some insurance clerk or you and your doctorwhen you here negitives about health care please check to see if those that are stating the negitives are with the insurance companys. This is one of the most important things you can do for your self and your country please read stop the hate and the lies look for the truth.

                                  #10.3 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:58 PM EDT
                                  BrianAgness

                                  China has already stated that they want an alternative to the US Dollar as the World Reserve Currency.

                                  Well yeah, and they want that alternative to be their own currency. It would signify the strength of China and place it as an equal to the US in international finance.

                                    #10.4 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:16 AM EDT
                                    corpspongovDeleted
                                    Ferrari5k

                                    Oh Dennis. The Dems OWNED CONGRESS untill 1994 (Contract w/America. Until then it's been Democrat since WWII ! Where are you getting this stuff? They've really gotten to you and revised your history picture. Only Congress can appropiate funds.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #10.6 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:05 PM EDT
                                    7cents

                                    During Roosevelt's administration, from 1933 until 1945, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. Republicans won control of both houses in the 1946 elections, only to lose them in 1948; with Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower's election to the presidency in 1952, Republicans again won both houses. However, after the Democratic Party again won back control in the elections of 1954, it was the majority party in both houses of Congress for most of the next 40 years; Republicans were only able to win control of the Senate for a six-year period from 1981 until 1987. Republicans won a majority in each house of Congress in the elections of 1994 and controlled both houses until 2006, except for the Senate for most of 2001 and 2002, when the Democrats had the majority after Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats. In 2006, Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives, and the Senate elections yielded a makeup of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and two independents. In the 110th Congress (2007–08), the Democratic voting bloc had a 51-49 majority in the Senate because the two independents, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, aligned themselves with the Democratic caucus. In the 111th Congress, which convened in 2009, the Democratic Party holds a majority in each house of Congress.

                                      #10.7 - Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:24 AM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      just_my_opinion-1021472

                                      Man this is depressing and while at our house we are doing without our government officials aren't.

                                      • 2 votes
                                      Reply#11 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:34 PM EDT
                                      shanat3

                                      Bush has already spent all of our money people. Bush add to the Gov't with is many programs and payrolls. Blackwater getting Billions of taxpayers money. How many friends of the Bush and Cheney are getting millions of dollars. Jobs disappearing under Bush at a rate that people can find work. Most of the employed had pink slips before Obama even took office. Hell Bush didn't even put the war money in his budget. That was a separate budget. Bush was the worst thing to happen to America and Americans. People get mad at Obama because that can't look into a crystal ball and predict the correct thing when it came to unemployment and the deficit. Bush robbed SSI and all of the other programs that help people to fund his war and other big Gov't programs. If Obama didn't do nothing, things would be worst. Obama hasn't a chioce but to spend and spend. Just like the car program. If Obama didn't do that, these dealerships that survived would be gone. Also the stimulus has made and save jobs okay. If these states and cities spend the stimulus like it is suppose then more jbs would be out there.

                                        #12 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:38 PM EDT
                                        Kavidog22

                                        ....I don't think anyone is debating wether or not Bush is also the blame shanat....Only that Obambi has taken a bad situation and made it EXPONENTIALLY worse....

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #12.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:42 PM EDT
                                        Bo Cephus

                                        B.S.Shanananana ..Your Democratic liberal (Pelosi/Reid) congress did all this..Lying sak-o-crap.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #12.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:47 PM EDT
                                        Fellow NoName

                                        Bo, CoH, no bad words. You said Pelosi. That's a bad word in my book.

                                        What happened to her "jobs, jobs, jobs?"

                                        Anyway, I can't stand her face!

                                        • 7 votes
                                        #12.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:58 PM EDT
                                        tom sevigny

                                        Nancy Pelosi's momma fed her with a slingshot she was so homely.

                                        • 7 votes
                                        #12.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:02 PM EDT
                                        shanat3

                                        You know like people said it is easier to be on the sideline than follow the worst Pres and the worst crisis on many fronts. What has Obama done that has made it worst. Obama has done the oppsite. You people need to be directing your anger at Bush and the CEO's who make billions of dollars and still cut and move jobs out of America. Also how did the Dem Congress do this when Bush used his veto pen more that any Pres in his last 2 years. Please it is the evil Bush who has crap on America and also has America crumbing under her own weight. Just maybe if Bush had spent money on America and Americans, we wouldn't be in this mess.

                                          #12.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:07 PM EDT
                                          Fellow NoName

                                          Nancy Pelosi's momma fed her with a slingshot she was so homely

                                          Was this before or after her first facelift? What did they call them back then?

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #12.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:10 PM EDT
                                          shanat3

                                          tom... we got you, you hate Pelosi becasue she is a strong woman

                                            #12.7 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:10 PM EDT
                                            Fellow NoName

                                            strong woman

                                            No, I believe he said homely

                                            • 5 votes
                                            #12.8 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:11 PM EDT
                                            Kavidog22

                                            ....shanat,

                                            ....you can't be helped nor coached if you fail to realize the gravity of this situation.......Obama was a 'community organizer', not a 'savior'.....wake up man....

                                            • 4 votes
                                            #12.9 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:13 PM EDT
                                            shanat3

                                            People who attack other other people's looks are most likely not good liking themselves or jealous

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #12.10 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:13 PM EDT
                                            Fellow NoName

                                            I didn't attack her looks. I just said she doesn't look human with all those facelifts. Tom was the one that made the brilliant slingshot joke.

                                            • 6 votes
                                            #12.11 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:15 PM EDT
                                            shanat3

                                            Kavidog... you know what is funny and wrong about the "savior" comment is that it is you Obama haters who use that word. Kavidog... uh guess what Obama is too and mange to do has a "community organizer. Wait for the answer, "President of America"

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #12.12 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:16 PM EDT
                                            just_my_opinion-1021472

                                            Ok, lets just say Bush left a mess. Obama wanted this job and wanted it bad, he got it, he needs to suck it up and quit blaming the previous administration for it. He should drop his health care plans and put a brake on all senseless and stupid spending a.k.a. Pork, sit back assess the stituation instead of trying to ram through so many things this country just can't afford at this time.

                                            In my opinion his number one priority should be trying to figure out how to encourage manufacturing jobs back in the U.S. Put people back to work, build a stronger middle class and the money will be there for the other things that he wants to do.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #12.13 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:39 PM EDT
                                            shanat3

                                            just... what should he drop his health care. Is it because poor people don't deserve anything or it cost to much to save lives. See we can spend billions of American's money on wars that is crap. But we must not spend money on and for Americans who bust their butts and pay the Gov't too. Also the stimulus is dong some of that. Just maybe if the Reps do something beside say no and help. Also it is funny that they are saying no to everything that they got anf Americans want. See like someone said on a post, the GOP can bash Obama on everything that he is trying to do to better America, but you want Obama to just shut up right

                                              #12.14 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:04 PM EDT
                                              tom sevigny

                                              ...tom, you hate Pelosi because she is a strong woman.

                                              I didn't even mention her body odor or lack of personal hygiene but now that you mention it...

                                              • 5 votes
                                              #12.15 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:47 PM EDT
                                              just_my_opinion-1021472

                                              shanat-

                                              I think our government should stop spending period. The health care issues could be helped by the government but the government doesn't need to take it over to help correct the problem it just adds to the problem. As I stated we need more jobs in this country and if we had those a lot of people would be able to get benefits through those jobs.

                                              Too many bills get passed with a lot of pork attached to them that just waste tax payers money.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #12.16 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:37 PM EDT
                                              shanat3

                                              just... please got this in your head, the Gov't is not and let me repeat, not going to take over health care okay. Please do not trust that a lot of jobs will get everyone health care. I have work at places that don't give health care. Not all companies who make good money give health care. Also health care ins. are screwing people because they know a Gov't plan would wreck the billions that they make. Not all pork is bad. In fact pork employees people also to do whatever the pork is design to do

                                                #12.17 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:42 PM EDT
                                                Jack TX

                                                tom... we got you, you hate Pelosi becasue she is a strong woman

                                                Riiiight. So unless you're a raving socialist you must be opposed to strong women...

                                                Hey Tom, how did you feel about Maggie Thatcher? She was sort of a strong woman. How did you feel about Liddy Dole? How about Kay Bailey Hutchison?

                                                Personally, I don't hate Pelosi, but I sure as hell don't want her kind of America.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #12.18 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:46 PM EDT
                                                Fellow NoName

                                                I think I can speak for both Tom and Myself here...

                                                I don't hate Pelosi,

                                                We do!

                                                • 4 votes
                                                #12.19 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:09 PM EDT
                                                blll

                                                Pelosi's not going anywhere. She's got something like a crazy 80% approval rating in her district, one of the strongest in Congress. You better get used to it, because she's probably going to be there until she decides to retire at this rate.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #12.20 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:22 AM EDT
                                                tom sevigny

                                                Hear that America? Nancy Pelosi has an 80% approval rating in San Fransicko!!!

                                                She is in the low thirties in the Nation as a whole. That accounts for the 15% of Americans who call themselves liberal and the other 15% who have escaped from mental institutions. Personally I'd like to see her wth her own reality television show in Siberia.

                                                • 4 votes
                                                #12.21 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:43 PM EDT
                                                Fellow NoName

                                                I hate Nancy Pelosi's face. It angers me.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #12.22 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:36 PM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                brianm-329

                                                Does not Congress see a problem here? Pelose, pull your head out of the sand. Folks, we are about to have the highest tax increases ever. And more, more, wasted spending. This has got to stop! Vote them out!

                                                Where are the level headed leaders?

                                                We can not afford to be adding any more debt! The government bubble is next to burst just like all of the rest did. Do you believe that the tax increase is only going to hit the people that make more the 250,000... its a lie. They miscalculated! Geewiz get these people away from the checkbook.

                                                • 6 votes
                                                Reply#13 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:38 PM EDT
                                                tom sevigny

                                                Have you taken a good look at Pelosi lately in the daylight?

                                                Pelosi! Put your head back in the sand!

                                                • 4 votes
                                                #13.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:00 PM EDT
                                                Fellow NoName

                                                "jobs, jobs, jobs"

                                                yours truly,

                                                Nancy Pelosi

                                                • 5 votes
                                                #13.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:12 PM EDT
                                                brianm-329

                                                LOL Thanks Tom I needed that ... LOL (spelling correction Pelosi)

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #13.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:20 PM EDT
                                                tom sevigny

                                                Joe Biden said that jobs is a three letter word. Where is ole Joe? Is he in Cheney's Bunker getting water-boarded by Obama's henchman as a form of aversion therapy for his gaffes?

                                                • 4 votes
                                                #13.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:14 PM EDT
                                                corpspongovDeleted
                                                bigmeat42

                                                Roveto..... Ron Paul is a nut. He said that people should struggling on their own and Gov't would not help people.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #13.6 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:17 PM EDT
                                                Fellow NoName

                                                Roveto..... Ron Paul is a nut. He said that people should struggling on their own and Gov't would not help people.

                                                Unfortunately, meat, that is called liberty, which Ron Paul stands for. Why should the government steal money from me to support the lazy?

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #13.7 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:39 PM EDT
                                                bigmeat42

                                                Fellow... okay, I got you. You don't want to help people and I do.

                                                  #13.8 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:48 AM EDT
                                                  Fellow NoName

                                                  No offense, bigmeat, but I am a small business owner that has to pay a ridiculous amount of taxes. Certainly, if you not only understood the English language, but also realized how much we already pay in taxes, you would understand our frustration. Between SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Real Estate Tax, plus I'm in Cook County, so 10% sales tax that drives my customers across county borders because a bunch of Democrats run the goddamn city say this is what we have to add to my customers burden?

                                                  You haven't a clue, do you? You don't feel the burden. Jumpstart the economy on my back? Sorry, I'm looking out after myself...

                                                  If you want a handout, go to your Church!

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #13.9 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:30 AM EDT
                                                  BrianAgness

                                                  Why should the government steal money from me to support the lazy?

                                                  Because some of that money that the government is "stealing" in the form of legal taxes actually goes to people who require it to buy basic needs (clothing, food, rent, etc.). Just because there is a small percentage of people able to perpetrate welfare/unemployment fraud, doesn't mean it should be scraped entirely.

                                                  Also without that assistance from the government, most poor/unemployed would not have any purchasing power, decreasing consumer sales for businesses. If sales decrease jobs decrease, then less products are being made, jobs decrease again. With all these people losing their jobs it adds to the group not buying anything. It's a bad pattern and one that would emerge if welfare programs were cut.

                                                    #13.10 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:26 AM EDT
                                                    bigmeat42

                                                    Fellow.... so it is only the Dems who tax more. I'm a business owner too, but I will pay a little more taxes so my fellow hard working Americans can have the things in their life to live better. Also my taxes went up under Bush like I have never seen okay. Get a clue about the American life or move to a small island and claim it yours because in America, you will and get this, you will pay taxes.

                                                      #13.11 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:34 AM EDT
                                                      corpspongovDeleted
                                                      Fellow NoName

                                                      Fellow.... so it is only the Dems who tax more

                                                      Typically that's how it work in the good old state of illinois. There is a reason Chicago has the highest sales tax in the nation, and believe me, it isn't republicans running the city.

                                                      Get a clue about the American life or move to a small island and claim it yours because in America, you will and get this, you will pay taxes.

                                                      No $hit sherlock! Everyone knows two things you cannot avoid are death and taxes. I just think we should be paying less taxes.

                                                        #13.13 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:34 PM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        Smokie-788412

                                                        So let me this straight, if we spend another 1-1.5 trillion dollare son health care we are going to reduce the deficit? I don't know about that. I do have a calculator they can borrow if they need one. Ridiculous spending bills are going to kill the tax payer. people wo9nder whay people have been shouting at town-hall meeting? Well here is your answer.

                                                        • 5 votes
                                                        Reply#14 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:40 PM EDT
                                                        blll

                                                        There's more than one problem. First, we spend way too much on health care. Health care reform might reduce spending in the long term - thats the goal.

                                                        Second, our health care sucks. Its the worst in the industrial world. We rank 50th in terms of life expectancy, 37th in terms of health care quality. Countries like Cuba and Costa Rica are actually much better than us.

                                                        Third, yes, our deficit is too high. It may be that we have to spend money now on reform to fix our problems with health care, though.

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        #14.1 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:19 AM EDT
                                                        Fellow NoName

                                                        We rank 50th in terms of life expectancy

                                                        I still believe a part of this reason is how gluttonous our society is. Our diet sucks!

                                                        • 4 votes
                                                        #14.2 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:23 PM EDT
                                                        tom sevigny

                                                        Hand me another BigMAc dude.

                                                        I haven't left my bigscreen tv in two weeks. I think I'm getting bedsores. Honey, did the public assistance check come yet? Go buy me a 30 pack of Coors and some smokes. Don't forget my Ben and Jerrys and Cheetohs.

                                                        Who's this fat guy on tv in a suit? Kennedy who? Oh he died. Well anyway he looks like Deputy dog. Hey what time is Olberman on?

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        #14.3 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:49 PM EDT
                                                        Fellow NoName

                                                        Go buy me a 30 pack of Coors and some smokes

                                                        Count me in on that! Then again, I stick to water, beer, and a little coffee.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #14.4 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:47 PM EDT
                                                        BrianAgness

                                                        I haven't left my bigscreen tv in two weeks. I think I'm getting bedsores. Honey, did the public assistance check come yet? Go buy me a 30 pack of Coors and some smokes. Don't forget my Ben and Jerrys and Cheetohs.

                                                        Yeah because anyone who collects welfare checks or unemployment benefits can afford a bigscreen tv. Obviously you don't understand how little you get. The current maximum weekly benefit rate is $405 in NY, the actual benefit rate is most likely lower seeing as the rate you will receive is 1/26 of your prior wages. Considering bills, food, rent, etc. I don't see how someone receiving unemployment checks for 26 weeks would viably purchase a large tv, tons of beer and cigarettes.

                                                        Since welfare laws are different in each state it's hard t compare, but most states also have a clause that requires an unemployment recipient to meet with a social worker and show an active effort to find new employment. Not doing so would cease payments. Because of this reform in 1996-7 welfare is more stringent and afforded to those who are unemployed and looking. Not the lazy man you portrayed.

                                                          #14.5 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:43 AM EDT
                                                          corpspongovDeleted
                                                          Reply
                                                          One Miscreant

                                                          This $864 billion total covers all appropriations approved by Congress for FY2001 to meet war needs from FY2009 through the first part of FY2009, the current fiscal year.

                                                          CRS Report for Congress http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

                                                          Anyone think this headline has anything to do with spending $864 billion dollars we didn't have, while we sent the us Taxpayers a boat load of tax cuts jacking the figure up even further? I think we forgot something in this discussion, it's called history.

                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          Reply#15 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:43 PM EDT
                                                          Smokie-788412

                                                          With just the stimulus bills that passed it was over $1.4 trillion. That's history.

                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          #15.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 PM EDT
                                                          One Miscreant

                                                          4-5 trillion added to the National Debt under Bush. More history. Class dismissed.

                                                            #15.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:17 PM EDT
                                                            just_my_opinion-1021472

                                                            One,

                                                            So, since Bush added to the Nation Debt does it make it ok and perfectly reasonable that anyone who follows adds to it? ? ? Shouldn't we elect and expect government officials who govern within their budget so they can do what is best for this country?

                                                            • 3 votes
                                                            #15.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:44 PM EDT
                                                            One Miscreant

                                                            So, since Bush added to the Nation Debta) does it make it ok and perfectly reasonable that anyone who follows adds to it? ? ? b) Shouldn't we elect and expect government officials who govern within their budget so they can do what is best for this country?

                                                            a) No. b) Yes, absolutely. But I enjoy showing BS'ers the door and this thread didn't seem to be going in that direction.

                                                            BTW-every president in history has added to the National Debt.

                                                              #15.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:49 PM EDT
                                                              Sentenced24yearsofObamaDeleted
                                                              One Miscreant

                                                              No President has added to the national debt. Congress makes the spending laws.

                                                              And they get their spending requests from where?

                                                                #15.6 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:14 PM EDT
                                                                Sentenced24yearsofObamaDeleted
                                                                Reply
                                                                Spike Eng2

                                                                It would make for a more perfect union if both sides would set aside their political views and instead work for the common good but that is unlikely. I f it were ever to happen now would be a good time. Repub,s will try to foist the whole mess on the Dems and Dems will claim it was all inherited. To bad

                                                                  Reply#16 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:46 PM EDT
                                                                  Kavidog22

                                                                  ...Too Bad indeed Spike Eng2.... While Congress sit haughty on their thrones mudslinging we the 'common stock' have to shoulder the burden of their errors.....shame on ANYONE who supports our 'politicians' and can't see past their own partisanship....BIGOTS ALL!!

                                                                  • 3 votes
                                                                  #16.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:17 PM EDT
                                                                  Smokie-788412

                                                                  Well Spike what would you have people do? The politicians started this mess a long time ago. I don't think that the majority of the people of this nation are either right or left. We are just caught in the middle, with all of them spending the tax money that hasn't been collected yet. Tell me, Do you think it is wise to have Congress and the White House continue the spending like they are now? I say vote all the bastards out of office. At least get rid of the ones that have been up there too damn long. Washington looks like an old folks home half the time.

                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                  #16.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:15 PM EDT
                                                                  Reply
                                                                  Han_SoloDeleted
                                                                  Sentenced24yearsofObamaDeleted
                                                                  John-614398

                                                                  Democrats have been dying to be in a leadership position for many years. Well they finally were given a chance and look what they have done with it.

                                                                  The first time in 20 years they have an opportunity to show what they can do and what happens. They absolutely went insane.

                                                                  So it's off to wander in the desert for another 40 years. Will they never learn?

                                                                  • 6 votes
                                                                  #19 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:22 PM EDT
                                                                  shanat3

                                                                  John... what positive thing do you see the GOP doing under Bush. Be truthful

                                                                    #19.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:28 PM EDT
                                                                    usfreestar

                                                                    what positive thing do you see the GOP doing under Bush. Be truthful

                                                                    Preventing immature college-student socialists from taking taxpayer money out of hard working Americans with one hand and distribute them with the other, trying to turn US of A into socio-economic Europe?

                                                                    I would rather give all my money to charity, a private business, or a thief in the night than to let a liberal-socialistic Government get them to distribute them - minus a nice "administration fee" - to whomever "they prefer" at the moment.

                                                                    So here's a message to all socialists: move to Europe and get your "free" health care, social security, and retirement pension (once you've paid your marginal 45-60% taxes for X amount of years depending on your country of choice). Meanwhile, I would rather live under the bridges than to live under a socialist Government who knows not only "what I need" but "how much" I need - while rigidly asserting my income to make sure that I neither get more nor less than my neighbor.

                                                                    Except if I'm one of the "chosen" ones with the "right" political attitude. Because we are all equal in a socialistic society - only some are more equal than others, of course. That goes without saying.

                                                                    • 8 votes
                                                                    #19.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:05 PM EDT
                                                                    shanat3

                                                                    ufreestar...... so that is your respond of what Bush did that was positive. Or is it really your thoughs of America and the socialists country that America already is. Well guess what, Obama is the one of is Pres and it is you people who want to move away from the socialist's America. Guess what too, charity is a socialist program for your FYI

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #19.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:16 PM EDT
                                                                    usfreestar

                                                                    ? charity is a "socialist program"?

                                                                    LOL

                                                                    Charity is not a "program" - it's an individual effort, and Conservatives give far more to charity of their OWN money than liberals (who merely want other peoples' money and re-distribute them).

                                                                    You're not even American are you.....you sound......French.....

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    #19.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:36 PM EDT
                                                                    bigmeat42

                                                                    usfreestar.... I see that you jump over shanat3 question about is that all Bush did that was good to you because that is answer is not good at all. See charity is a "socialist program" okay. You are giving from the rich to the poor. Or you are giving to the have nots from the haves.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #19.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:47 PM EDT
                                                                    Fellow NoName

                                                                    Bigmeat, not to sound like a jerk, but I can't even understand what the hell you are trying to say.

                                                                    In any case, some people need to out check what socialism really is. It's not charity at all. It's a utopian fallacy. It isn't even Robin Hood, which democrats seem to like until it's time to file their taxes. I recently heard a member of the Socialist party speak, and it was deafening. To sum it up, it was that the community owns everything, and you don't work for yourself, but your society, and you are born into it.

                                                                    No thank you. I like freedom.

                                                                    • 6 votes
                                                                    #19.6 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:12 AM EDT
                                                                    bigmeat42

                                                                    fellow.... you have your freedom. What are you talking about. Charity is one of the biggest socialist programs in the world. America has socialist all through her.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #19.7 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:22 AM EDT
                                                                    Fellow NoName

                                                                    Yes, but charity is choice, while socialism is forced.

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    #19.8 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:49 AM EDT
                                                                    bigmeat42

                                                                    fellow.... so Medicare is forcing people to join. Welfare is forcing people to join. Wow I didn't know that. I guess I will be force to join welfare and medicare

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #19.9 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:56 AM EDT
                                                                    Fellow NoName

                                                                    Yes! Try dodging your taxes and see how long it takes for an IRS agent to show up at your door...

                                                                    I've paid into this crap since I was 15. So, being 26, what happens if I die in 10 years? Where does it go? It's a Ponzi Scheme, just like SS and medicaid, which is my personal favorite. I choose not to procreate until I can afford it, but whooops! accidents happen!

                                                                    I liked Disney's version of Robin Hood, but in reality, it doesn't do to well.

                                                                    • 6 votes
                                                                    #19.10 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:10 AM EDT
                                                                    usfreestar

                                                                    Well spoken Fellow!

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #19.11 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:27 AM EDT
                                                                    John-614398

                                                                    Nice try but this isn't about Bush. This is about irresponsible Democrats that can not control their insane lust for spending and power. But as for Bush. I did not agree with a lot of what he did either. I could write a page on just those things. Because it's Republican does not make it right with me.

                                                                    So tell me this. Do you agree with all of Obama's wild wasteful spending agenda? What is it about Obama and his clan that you don't agree with. If the Democrats crapped their pants they would point to Bush for blame.

                                                                    Show us something that will lend a little credibility here.

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    #19.12 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:36 AM EDT
                                                                    Wildcard-781265

                                                                    They keep saying what “Bush did” but the fact is Obama spent more in 8 months than Bush did in 8 years, they can’t see that.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #19.13 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:29 AM EDT
                                                                    John-614398

                                                                    They can see it and they know it's true but try to deflect the discussion to other things like bush or Cheney.

                                                                    That is the only defense the left has.

                                                                    That's it. That's all there is.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #19.14 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:32 AM EDT
                                                                    John-614398

                                                                    Shanat3

                                                                    John... what positive thing do you see the GOP doing under Bush. Be truthful

                                                                    I am absolutely livid at the Republican Party. From spending to erosion of liberty to not being able to find one person that can effectively do battle with the press.

                                                                    But what choice do I have? As bad as they have done, they are a thousand times better than and Democrat so what to do. Try to reform them from the inside, not support them at any cost.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #19.15 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:38 AM EDT
                                                                    bigmeat42

                                                                    John.... no I don't agree with all of Obama spending. But at least Obama has spent money on America and Americans. It is a hard thing to do to choose what to save when you have many business failing at the same time. Also taxes have been around forever so for people to complain about taxes is stupid.

                                                                      #19.16 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:40 PM EDT
                                                                      tom sevigny

                                                                      Pull your namesake out of your mouth so I can understand you!!!And FYI complaining about taxes is Patriotic. (Contrary to what Jose Biden says).

                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                      #19.17 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:53 PM EDT
                                                                      Fellow NoName

                                                                      Also taxes have been around forever so for people to complain about taxes is stupid.

                                                                      Really? With that logic, we'd still be the Colonies under British Rule.

                                                                      And FYI complaining about taxes is Patriotic

                                                                      Yep!

                                                                      Pull your namesake out of your mouth so I can understand you

                                                                      I can't keep a straight face half the time we join in on threads! Hilarious.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #19.18 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:49 PM EDT
                                                                      BrianAgness

                                                                      They keep saying what “Bush did” but the fact is Obama spent more in 8 months than Bush did in 8 years, they can’t see that.

                                                                      To bad this is false... Obama doesn't spend any government money that isn't allocated to him by congress.

                                                                      BUt even if we go by your definition... under Bush congress spent much more considering that the TARP bill passed while he was President, along with more than 700 billion for the Iraq War. So if that's what Bush "spent," it's more than what Obama has "spent."

                                                                        #19.19 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:47 AM EDT
                                                                        BrianAgness

                                                                        And FYI complaining about taxes is Patriotic.

                                                                        pa·tri·ot·ic adj.- Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country.

                                                                        So by complaining about your countries government policies is somehow showing your love/loyalty for your country?

                                                                          #19.20 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:50 AM EDT
                                                                          corpspongovDeleted
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          dsanthony

                                                                          hahaha ... my side hurts from laughing...

                                                                          I would like to repost some of my (and others') posts warning back in september that this would happen. Since I'm over 40, I won't have to deal for long with the chaos that will be caused by obama's deficit spending, but I see dark days in the future for america.

                                                                          Here's another prediction -- obama (or his liberal successors) will use the economic turmoil created by these defecits to push for even greater socialist spending. Never let a crisis go to waste, as rahm says...

                                                                          • 9 votes
                                                                          Reply#20 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:47 PM EDT
                                                                          Smokie-788412

                                                                          As much I hate to say it. I think your right. Tripling this years budget and calling the Bush Bunch big spenders. Well I guess it all in the way you look at things.

                                                                          • 5 votes
                                                                          #20.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:22 PM EDT
                                                                          Ferrari5k

                                                                          All so correct, both of you. Remember when we old guys learned the Roman Empire or any Empire can't last but we thought we had a couple of hundred years left? I don't think so. I'm starting to believe we are going to have to make a decision regarding the future of this Nation sooner than later. We are being driven into a future engineered by the EuroSocialist that we don't want. Less Freedon, Privacy, and Individual Independence so some can have more control over how we live our life.

                                                                          I'm so and tired of being told that "Living your way equates to Billions in Lost Productivity". Is that all we are, Productivity Robots? That's Feudelism, the European model where the very few own most to include your shelter. People forget that most Europeans don't own homes or nice cars, not two almost new ones anyway. They're like ants, doing the bidding of society.

                                                                          Maybe it's best the Nation almost hit the skids so people will wake up and "Shrink" The Federal Govt while returning Powers to State and Local Levels where people control their own fate. It may be painful, but it's better than slow death. We may have to go down that road to save ourselves.

                                                                          There's very few programs that the State can't administer better than the FEDS, plus each State has the ability to create programs more tailored to the individuals that actually reside in that State, not somewhere 3000 miles away.

                                                                          America was created by people who do what's best for themselves and it's proved to be the best model. A rising tide lifts all boats. A nation where ,you were innocent until proven guilty, not just arrested, like it's now become. Freedom to Home School and buy my own type of insurance without paying for "Hair transplant Coverage" or "Maternity Ins" if I don't want it and to be able to buy it from Montana if I want. MY DECISION, NOT SAMS and CAROL'S!

                                                                          There's no reason we have to keep giving power to a Centralized and politically appointed and motivated bunch of Bureaucrats who we can't control. That wasn't the plan. As a matter of fact, it was the opposite.

                                                                          Enough, you get my drift, don't you. Just remember the Constitution was written to LIMIT the Power of The Federal Government for a very good reason. Abuse of power over time is a normal human quality and must be contained.

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #20.2 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:02 PM EDT
                                                                          Fellow NoName

                                                                          Just remember the Constitution was written to LIMIT the Power of The Federal Government for a very good reason.

                                                                          Most people don't understand that. Good to see some people do. Doesn't matter though, our politicians piss all over it anyway.

                                                                          • 3 votes
                                                                          #20.3 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:26 PM EDT
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          econenthusiast

                                                                          This just proves to me that he is willing to buy everybodies vote in stead of fixing the problems.

                                                                          Maybe the problems are just to big for him? maybe he doesn't have enough experience.

                                                                          • 6 votes
                                                                          Reply#21 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:01 PM EDT
                                                                          Was a Democrat-651386

                                                                          Since most people like to use deficit and debt as interchangeable terms. Let's have a class, when it comes to government spending, in what is deficit and what is debt.

                                                                          The following is a simple example of what they are.

                                                                          Let's say that I make $2000/month. I decide that I need $2100/month to live like I want. Since I only have $2000 to spend, I have to run a "deficit" of $100/month 2100-2000=100. I have to find a way to get that $100/month so every month I put a $100 on my credit card. At the end of 1 year I have accumulated $1200 of "debt".

                                                                          If I continue to run this "deficit" for 10 years I will have accumulated $12,000 of debt which has to be paid.

                                                                          Now lets look at the current "deficit" projected at 1.7 trillion for this year. Just like the example above, this money has to come from somewhere. At the end of the budget year this "deficit" becomes "debt". Since the US only pays interest on the National "Debt" the total "debt" increases by the amount of the "deficit" every year.

                                                                          Every Congress has added to the National "Debt". Yes, even when Clinton left with a surplus, after his last year in office, it was not a "debt" surplus it was a "deficit" surplus. All that means is that congress spent 350 billion less than what they took in as revenue for that year. It is true that the National "Debt" did not go up that year, but it did not go down since nothing was paid on it.

                                                                          When you hear that the National "Debt"will increase by 7 to 9 trillion dollars by 2013. Remember, it means that in 4 years the feds are planning on "deficit" spending 1.7 to 2.25 trillion dollars a year more than they are taking in as revenue. That is a number that is unsustainable. Plus the above number does not include that cost of health care reform.

                                                                          Now let's look at Obama cutting the "deficit". Let's use the 800 billion figure that was used in an earlier post. The poster said that Obama would fulfill his promise of cutting the "deficit" even if it was only to $800 billion. I think a lot of people think that he is cutting the National "Debt" when in reality he would only be increasing the National "Debt" 1.6 trillion every 2 yrs.

                                                                          • 9 votes
                                                                          Reply#22 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:12 PM EDT
                                                                          usfreestar

                                                                          Was A Democrat,

                                                                          Thank you for your clear and competent post.

                                                                          It was certainly a mistake for the Democrats not to "keep" you, since you are actually able to do the math!

                                                                          This administration obviously need people like you - but so do "we". lol

                                                                          • 5 votes
                                                                          #22.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:21 PM EDT
                                                                          Was a Democrat-651386

                                                                          usfreestar

                                                                          Thank you for your comment. I haven't been a dem since Carter. I guess that is when I finally realized that I needed to do the math myself. I am now an independent conservative and I vote the lesser of the evils that are running.

                                                                          • 7 votes
                                                                          #22.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:25 PM EDT
                                                                          Fellow NoName

                                                                          Will you and I ever be able to not vote for the lesser of two evils, but instead for the best candidate? It's scary that I have more choices of chicken noodle soup to choose from than candidates to hold the highest office in our country!

                                                                          • 6 votes
                                                                          #22.3 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:00 PM EDT
                                                                          Smokie-788412

                                                                          I think I'm going to stay close to you people. Both of you seem to have common sense. That's an ingredient that is missing in a lot of people these days. I bet both of you worked your a$$ off with real jobs.

                                                                          • 4 votes
                                                                          #22.4 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:27 PM EDT
                                                                          usfreestar

                                                                          I am now an independent conservative and I vote the lesser of the evils that are running.

                                                                          Like my friend Fellow NoName suggests it's sad that we have to vote between plague or cholera. But I'm happy there are still sensible people out there who care for American ideals first, and partisan politics second! Thank you.

                                                                          • 5 votes
                                                                          #22.5 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:42 PM EDT
                                                                          corpspongovDeleted
                                                                          Steve-485394

                                                                          Wasademocrat says:

                                                                          Let's say that I make $2000/month. I decide that I need $2100/month to live like I want. Since I only have $2000 to spend, I have to run a "deficit" of $100/month 2100-2000=100. I have to find a way to get that $100/month so every month I put a $100 on my credit card. At the end of 1 year I have accumulated $1200 of "debt".

                                                                          Let's look at what you have said, your explanation is very good. Is this the reasoning that Bush used in his approach to the cost of the War in Iraq, I think so. Is this not the rational that so many new workers use in buying a home, and was this not the thought of those who believed that they could purchase a home, allow it to go up, and then refinance at a lower rate. The example of what you have used is one that many, many good Republicans and yes, business minded Democrats have used over the ages, it is called leverage. Many if not all reader here have done the same, used credit to purchase something that they really did not the available cash at the moment, but thinking that they(as their cash flow increases) would be able to pay off the debt in the future. Bush felt that way with the war, in fact believing that a share of the oil revenues in Iraq would pay for the action taken there, we all know now he war wrong, really wrong. Corporations take risk daily, small business owners start a venture based upon what you stated, it is to a degree the American way and it comes with inherent risk. The need for stimulus was to abate the slide of our economy, the need for additional efforts is to seed the capitalistic nature of the system we all live and work in. Additional jobs, profits, create revenue, revenue that can be spent or consumed. Consumption of products call for additional manufacturing, calling for additional workers, and all of this through our tax system creates revenue for the Federal Govt and the ability to pay down its debt. I will agree that congress needs to curtail new pork projects that will not have an economic benefit to more that their constituents in their local districts. Meaning, help build or re-vamp a factory which will put people back to work, which in turn will help create jobs and help to bring tax dollars to the Fed.

                                                                          If I continue to run this "deficit" for 10 years I will have accumulated $12,000 of debt which has to be paid.

                                                                          One would hope that over a period of time your ability to get raises, to improvise to improve your financial position in life would allow you to not live beyond your means, and start to pay down the debt you have accumulated. That is true of corporations and the Federal Govt, part of making an effort to balance the budget is that of utilizing the notion of matching inflows vs outflows and over the past 8 years we as a country and the administration did not come even close. Clinton has a surplus which was not used to pay down the debt, but used as a tax rebate to individuals(most would gladly give the money back to have a job) and mostly to corporations who took the money to move plants and equipment out of the United States taking jobs with them.

                                                                          Now lets look at the current "deficit" projected at 1.7 trillion for this year. Just like the example above, this money has to come from somewhere. At the end of the budget year this "deficit" becomes "debt". Since the US only pays interest on the National "Debt" the total "debt" increases by the amount of the "deficit" every year.

                                                                          Yes, correct statement, and as I have stated, fiscal responsibility, projections by the OMB, utilizing what they believe to be honest projections of tax revenue versus the outflows that are fixed by mandate and previous approvals of Congress is causing the current estimate to be what it is. What can be done, lowering taxes cuts revenue. But it stimulates growth cry so many. Supply side economics has not worked, Reagan was wrong, only because we have seen that as Corporations make more money, the trickle down effect does not trickle down at all, the average worker has had no real increase in wages accounting for inflation for over 30 years, yet the CEO's pay has been astronomical. We need stimulus to create jobs, put the middle class worker back to work, which will bring tax revenue into the system, then we need to balance revenue with costs, covering those costs and utilizing any overage to pay down our debt. It can be done!

                                                                          Every Congress has added to the National "Debt". Yes, even when Clinton left with a surplus, after his last year in office, it was not a "debt" surplus it was a "deficit" surplus. All that means is that congress spent 350 billion less than what they took in as revenue for that year. It is true that the National "Debt" did not go up that year, but it did not go down since nothing was paid on it.

                                                                          I think I covered this, remember it was taken to give huge tax giveaways to corporations and a small amount to the common man or woman.

                                                                          When you hear that the National "Debt"will increase by 7 to 9 trillion dollars by 2013. Remember, it means that in 4 years the feds are planning on "deficit" spending 1.7 to 2.25 trillion dollars a year more than they are taking in as revenue. That is a number that is unsustainable. Plus the above number does not include that cost of health care reform.

                                                                          Boy do I agree with you there, but the deficit spending by the previous administration, the lack of oversight on a freight train of a financial wreak through lack of regulation and allowing for financial derivatives to be sown about our landscape has been going on for the last 8 years or so without being checked, no one was crying then. Now we are in the worst, yes worst financial times of our lives and of this country, and we need to take some risks in believing in America and what it can do. Obama is taking a risk, at least he is trying to stem the impending doom that would engulf the entire world if not done.

                                                                          Now let's look at Obama cutting the "deficit". Let's use the 800 billion figure that was used in an earlier post. The poster said that Obama would fulfill his promise of cutting the "deficit" even if it was only to $800 billion. I think a lot of people think that he is cutting the National "Debt" when in reality he would only be increasing the National "Debt" 1.6 trillion every 2 yrs.

                                                                          Ah, projections, that would be as I said, close to the projections of Bush and Rumsfield about the cost of the Iraq war would it not be? Spending to make money, the Republican and capitalistic and yes even stupid Democrats believe in investment. One has to invest in our country, in our workers, in this land and believe that the investment in plant and equipment here in America will in fact pay off as it has for generations past. We can build the best there is to buy, and people and countries will pay for both our products and services if we provide what we know we can.

                                                                          So, lets not continue to knock what is being done, it has to be done, the projections are optimistic, yes optimistic what a thought! I believe in America and what we the people can do, we have shown this time and time again in periods of strife, we can, and will do it again. Believe!

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #22.7 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:22 AM EDT
                                                                          Lonnie-1003775

                                                                          After 17 years of marriage my ex would bring up something retarded I did after being married a year. . . Steve. you sure your not a middle aged woman in Florida? stop with the bush sh*t will ya? this guy was explaining what a debt vs deficit was. . . damn man. . .

                                                                            #22.8 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:08 PM EDT
                                                                            Steve-485394

                                                                            Lonnie: Sorry, but had to take care of business for one of my clients. So was not able to answer your petty remark until today.

                                                                            Ok, you seem to have issues, 17 years of marriage, won't go into or ask what you may have done to contribute to the divorce. Obviously you live in Florida, because you are looking at an ex from there. Nice statement, but I am all man. Again for those who have not read some of what I have said before, I am a family man, three children now young adults, and a professional in the financial industry, and have been going on 30 years.

                                                                            I gave praise to wasademocrat for some of what was said, so read it again. His statements on some items on the accumulation of deficits to make our national debt is correct. My statement was to one: explain how some of the national debt has accumulated over the years, and two, in explaining, make sure that President Bush gets credit for the huge financial crisis facing us that he is due. I was a Republican, for more than 30 years(good to be one being in the financial industry), but all of the backstabbing, lies, and lack of fiscal responsibility has lead me to change parties. We have established political people from both parties that are doing what they can against each other rather than doing what is right for America. I find that disgraceful of both parties.

                                                                            The estimates of future deficits and the resulting increase of our National Debt, is one based upon just that estimates. One estimates the revenue coming in to our govt.(taxes) vs the out flows(appropriations, programs, spending on military(to keep all of us safe), etc. If the inflows(taxes payed by corporations and individuals) exceed the outflows(yes, those social programs for the aged, called medicare and social security, with all of the other appropriations congress passes) then we have a surplus, if not, we have a deficit. Sometimes deficit spending is needed, and we have had an ongoing debate about a balanced budget amendment which has never passed(thank God).

                                                                            Sometimes we as a country need to leverage our future, while trying to balance our optimism in utilizing increased spending by the Federal Govt to induce growth. We, this country learned the hard way during the last Great Depression what happens when the banks and the financial institutions tighten credit during a credit crunch, it make things worse. Thank God again, for the stimulus, but I would argue that many of the places where money has been placed may not have been the best and certainly the bonuses given to financial industry executives should have been curtailed and nipped in the bud.

                                                                            If we use the stimulus money to create jobs, offer tax breaks to those entrepreneurs who are willing to take the risk of new business ventures, and in doing so create those jobs so needed by middle class America, then the resulting revenue to the govt in the form of taxes will in fact help to create additions to the positive side of the deficit or reduce it. All of this, what happens for the next quarters in our economy, and for the next few years, will in turn show all of us and allow the OMB to make correct projections on the deficit and how it will effect our National Debt.

                                                                            I tire of the dribble stated by so many, so many with anger and hatred toward one side or another, to those who are ill informed, to those who don't understand how an economy works, how to use accounting skills, those who have no regard for America, and only care about a party, whether is is Democrat or Republican. We need solid discourse, discourse that would be listened to by our representatives in congress. We need the bigots gone, the biased statements curtailed, and those who only seek to complain, to offer suggestions and not complaints.

                                                                            Read some of the stories about the trials and problems facing so many of our fellow Americans, it rips out ones heart. Those who have, be compassionate, for what ever fate allowed you to be where you are, aside from the hard working person you may be, imagine somehow you were hit with something, illness or whatever even an accident, that put you into the situation many are in. Ok, many put themselves there for lack of constraint and common sense, but still as a county are we to turn our backs on those too? We are hurting as a Nation, we fight amongst ourselves, bicker, and call names, state lies and half truths, is this what we want others in the World to see, we, the American people are better than that, We are the United States of America, and are Americans, put our efforts, our knowledge, our ingenuity to work for America and Americans. Stop the crap!

                                                                              #22.9 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:12 PM EDT
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              The Mayan Factor

                                                                              My only comment: Obama is making us a Third World country. So we get to experience all the great things he did (in Kenya)...no food, no health, a dictatorship, and worst of all a cross-over of our bill of rights.

                                                                              America is going to wake up one day without freedom, without food, without clothes, without shelter and without those 4... who really gives a @!$%# about health care?

                                                                              He will go down as the second worst President ever. Thank you America for being so Apathetic!

                                                                              • 8 votes
                                                                              Reply#23 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
                                                                              Was a Democrat-651386

                                                                              So right you are! The US will never be able to pay its debt, because they do not understand they can not keep spending more than they have.

                                                                              I love when I hear people say, I can live with spending which will total 70% of GDP. I guess they forget one important thing GDP is not money that the government has no equity in GDP. Since the government does not own GDP it is not like you owning a house that you can use to get a home equity loan.

                                                                              • 5 votes
                                                                              #23.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:30 PM EDT
                                                                              The Mayan Factor

                                                                              Thanks!

                                                                              There is a big difference between paying off your credit card (Obama) and buying an expansion on your business (which will make money)!

                                                                              A big difference between running a business by means of votes and running a business by means of "your not always the favorite one".

                                                                              But Bush screwed up almost as big!

                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                              #23.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:31 PM EDT
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              shepherds_lamb

                                                                              Thank you corporate greed...this is one helluva fine mess you've sunk us in.

                                                                              Obama, plain and simple: you suck. Your policies suck, your math sucks, your ideas suck. They suck HARD! And your cabinet's decisions SUCK!

                                                                              You know, I despise getting angry, I despise putting people down...but I am tired, sick and tired of this administration's antics already! They fumble and they don't care. They're laughing at us behind closed doors....sometimes right in our faces!

                                                                              Oh, what's this? Obama is nominating Bernanke for a 2nd term....OOOOO, some CHANGE this is?!!?!

                                                                              And anyone who calls for his impeachment is drowned out by proud supporters who can't swallow their pride and remove the veil of deception and ridiculousness to see the stinkin' pile of poo we're in over our heads!!!

                                                                              And friggen drop the past! Obama is NOT: Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt, or Bush. Stop comparing this administration to our previous president. IT IS THE PAST! We, as a nation, obviously still haven't learned how to pick the correct leader (although, while I did vote, it wasn't for McCain OR Obama).

                                                                              And don't play the "if so & so was president, it'd be X amount of times worse!" They're not president, so get out of fairy land!

                                                                              Obama is the engineer of this potential trainwreck we are all on, and unless someone switches the tracks REAL SOON, we're all going to suffer, period.

                                                                              • 4 votes
                                                                              Reply#24 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:26 PM EDT
                                                                              Fellow NoName

                                                                              Oh, what's this? Obama is nominating Bernanke for a 2nd term....OOOOO, some CHANGE this is?!!?!

                                                                              I know, right! I was pissed to wake up to that news.

                                                                              • 6 votes
                                                                              #24.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:02 PM EDT
                                                                              tom sevigny

                                                                              shepherds lamb,

                                                                              Do you need a campaign manager for 2012? I may be available.

                                                                              A word of advice, Don't go changin'.

                                                                              • 4 votes
                                                                              #24.2 - Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:57 PM EDT
                                                                              shepherds_lamb

                                                                              tom sevigny

                                                                              shepherds lamb,

                                                                              Do you need a campaign manager for 2012? I may be available.

                                                                              A word of advice, Don't go changin'

                                                                              LOL! Appreciate the nod, but I can't stand the thought of being in any close vicinity to our current politicians. I avoid the area when they come into town...I was pissed when BO was coming to Portsmouth, NH...it's only an hour from me....too stinking close for comfort!

                                                                              Besides, my true passion lies in an honest days work doing hard labor, not rubbing elbows with liars, cheats and thieves, all gussied up in a suit and tie, sitting behind a desk, on the road all the time and listening to people argue in vain.

                                                                              ...and yes, I've been white collar before, using my master's in Architecture degree...but I've found blue collar to be more American Dream for me. More time to be with family rather than chained to a desk putting in crazy hours working for the 'man'.

                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              #24.3 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:39 PM EDT
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              AlphaDogReporter

                                                                              Hmmmm what a coinkydinky - $9 trillion - where have I heard that figure before? Oh yeah:

                                                                              http://moneynews.newsmax.com/financenews/feds_lost_nine_trillion/2009/05/12/213463.html

                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                              Reply#25 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:35 PM EDT
                                                                              Fellow NoName

                                                                              Good article. They sure are earning their salaries, aren't they.

                                                                              • 5 votes
                                                                              #25.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:04 PM EDT
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              aoimiyazaki

                                                                              However improbable it may sound, I believe we have to spend our way out of this crisis. But still, cut down on unnecessary spending.

                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                              Reply#26 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:04 PM EDT
                                                                              WTF are you thinking

                                                                              "We need health care reform and we need it now." Oh, so there was a problem for the last 50 plus years??? Why did it become a problem in the last 6 months? The patients waiting in the emergency room of my county hospital (population 1 mil plus) emergency room looks like an immigration center. Yes, for you liberals out there you may call me a racist, but lookup racist in the dictionary. Lucky, I grew up poor, parents had a beat-up (clunker) car that couldn’t be trust for more than 30 miles, never lived in a house that was owned by my parents. Couldn’t qualify public housing or food stamps, because my parents worked for a living.

                                                                              Luckily, I had ambitions when I was younger. Started working when I was 16. Went to higher education (paid myself), got a job, continued post training and advancement(paid myself).

                                                                              Yes it’s truly sad…. Hardship is paid through blood and tears.

                                                                              At the spending rate the government is going, I will need to ask for a 10K raise.

                                                                              I would rather have Bill Clinton, in office, than a senator from the most corrupted political state in AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                                              Seriously, for those people (yes, those people and don’t take it for your skin color, race or creed) that voted for Obama “I hate to say, I told so you”.

                                                                              Here’s my paycheck, where is my “change”!

                                                                              • 6 votes
                                                                              Reply#27 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:16 PM EDT
                                                                              7cents

                                                                              Here’s my paycheck, where is my “change”!

                                                                              You hit that one on the head!!!

                                                                              To be honest with you, I think he plans on keeping the change also.

                                                                              by the time this president gets done with us with his spending and all, we will all have a bad case of baboon @ss.

                                                                              • 4 votes
                                                                              #27.1 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:32 PM EDT
                                                                              Deport & Export Now

                                                                              Any program we would put into place for American's will be sucked up and bankrupted by non-citizens, big business and special interest getting rich off so called cheap labor while pointing their fingers at American‘s calling us racist if we complain as we lose our jobs have our wages pushed down, then we are forced to pay for the illegals, healthcare, subsidized housing, welfare etc.. Leaving all our safety nets meant for us out of money. That apple that only cost a $1.00 really cost American‘s $5.00 in Social Services to these illegals? If companies hire an American at a fair wage we would save $3.00 per product produced, but oh no that wouldn’t work because it would save for us little old tax payers not the big business and their CEO. It only works if it’s the tax payer flipping the bill.

                                                                              Wouldn‘t be surprised if the so called clunkers from cash for clunkers weren’t really being sent to Mexico. We are already out of money so now let’s throw more money at the mismanaged companies that have imported and employed people from other countries and outsourced most of their parts for their products to be made outside the U.S.
                                                                              After the Government enforces our laws and cuts off and deports all the illegals brings our jobs back is when the American people will be willing to listen.
                                                                              How stupid are we? They are holding our money over our nose like a carrot calling it a stimulus saying we want you to spend your hard earned money to buy more stuff that was mostly made in some other country helping a company that bends over backwards to hirer anyone but American’s, please!! I’m pissed!!!!!!!!

                                                                              • 4 votes
                                                                              #27.2 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:46 PM EDT
                                                                              ringknockerDeleted
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              Smokie-788412

                                                                              Shepherds-- He got under my skin earlier today. I had to take a shower to cool off. You are right this really does SUCK!!

                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                              Reply#28 - Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:31 PM EDT
                                                                              Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                                              Leave a Comment:
                                                                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                              Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                              FUN STUFF:
                                                                              • Leaderboard |
                                                                              • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                              • Top of the Vine |
                                                                              • Newsvine Live |
                                                                              • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                              • The Greenhouse
                                                                              COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                              • Code of Honor |
                                                                              • Company Info |
                                                                              • Contact Us |
                                                                              • Jobs |
                                                                              • User Agreement |
                                                                              • Privacy Policy |
                                                                              • About our ads
                                                                              LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com