Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Next US President Faces Record Deficit  
User currently offlineSv7887 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1025 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

Hi all,
Here is the latest:

"Bush's successor will inherit a deficit that's likely to exceed a half-trillion dollars once war costs are factored in. This year's deficit will tally $389 billion. That's way up from $162 billion last year.

The new figures are so eye-popping that the next president may face pressure to take action instead of adding to it with expensive spending programs as promised by Democrat Barack Obama or new tax cuts pledged by Republican John McCain."

More at:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VWqL3tikhx7L_ompt0hDXO-5AD9270ASO1

Ouch...It seems like a few years of pain ahead for all of us...

-Sam

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17339 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Isn't it relatively smaller as a percentage of GDP?


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

Yes, the party of fiscal responsibility, eh?

Again, the GOP hasn't been that since the days of Gerald Ford. Why do they keep peddling that lie?


User currently offlineSv7887 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1025 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1548 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
Again, the GOP hasn't been that since the days of Gerald Ford. Why do they keep peddling that lie?

Well they haven't been recently and that's what got their butts kicked out of Congress..

But as the article states, how does billions of entitlement programs like Sen Obama have planned help narrow the deficit?


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5419 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1513 times:



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 3):
But as the article states, how does billions of entitlement programs like Sen Obama have planned help narrow the deficit?

I believe he has tax and spending priorities laid out to help fund these items. By the way "entitlement" encompasses something like three-quarters of the USA's budget. The problem is that we do not keep sufficient revenue streams for the war expenditures that we are currently making. These costs are beyond the "was spending authorizations" and extend into the regular defense (offense?  Wink ) budgets which cover all the replacement of the used, damaged, and destroyed war fighting materials.

I truly think that Bush should have submitted a special, across the board, 5% "war on terrorism funding tax" that would have paid for the costs immediately in real time without imposing additional and onerous financing costs onto it and tossing it all onto our future generations.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tugger (Reply 4):
5% "war on terrorism funding tax" t

Wow. That would have been something. Is that constitutional?

I guess it would make some sense.. i mean - you want to be "safe" and "protect the American Way - you should be ready to pay for it.. On the other hand...



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5419 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1504 times:



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 5):
Wow. That would have been something. Is that constitutional?

Yes. That's why I said "submitted" because he would have had to submit to congress for approval, after all we are the nation of "no taxation without representation"!

Of course I can only guess what Congress would have said, well at least the Republican delegation (we all know that the Democrats view taxes like drunken sailors view whores).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1471 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 6):
after all we are the nation of "no taxation without representation"!

Oh, we're being represented all right.


Poorly.

Vote all the bums out!


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39693 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1464 times:



Quoting Sv7887 (Thread starter):
The new figures are so eye-popping that the next president may face pressure to take action instead of adding to it with expensive spending programs as promised by Democrat Barack Obama or new tax cuts pledged by Republican John McCain."

...and that is the reason why I am not excited about this Presidential election.
The 44th President will be a 1-term President and will not being able to turn things around in 4 years. Obama or McCain will take a huge fall in 2012.
That is why I am not too upset about McCain winning the Presidency. I'd hate to see Obama go down in history as a failed President.
I say let McCain take the fall for Bush's mistakes.
I still wont vote for McCain though



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinePlatypus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1464 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
Yes, the party of fiscal responsibility, eh?

Hey Mr Brilliant!  footinmouth 

The Democrats have been in power for almost 2 years! The deficit was well below 2% of GDP, and going down, before the democrats took over!

Cheerio


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3516 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1459 times:

Without adequate knowledge of the US fiscal system, I would never dare to give any hints, but Germany had huge deficits during the last 30 years, something which puts huge pressure on coming generations.

The last and the current government are strictly trying to reduce the debt, so that in 2012, no new debts will have to be taken. This is a difficult step, as the money is needed everywhere, but it is important. I believe that we owe the upcoming generations a rational budget spending. But we also owe them schools with roofs on them, adequate infrastructure, cultural offers and a military which guarantees and ensures they can live in peace.

Balancing the needs with the available resources is a difficult task, but I think our current government does it quite well.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1420 times:



Quoting Slider (Reply 7):
Oh, we're being represented all right.


Poorly.

Vote all the bums out!

On that, I agree. If the American people would vote out every incumbent, maybe that would send the message tha the same old same old isn't acceptable anymore. Demcrat or Republican, replace them all.

Quoting Platypus (Reply 9):
The Democrats have been in power for almost 2 years! The deficit was well below 2% of GDP, and going down, before the democrats took over!

Maybe this little graph in this article will show you how hollow and lame that last sentence is. Take a look at it, really good, Platy:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-27-deficit_N.htm

Now, tell me again about how fiscally responsible the GOP has been since 1981? The proof is in the numbers: they've run up more debt than you can imagine. The only surplus has been during the Clinton Administration, and the fiscal year where Bush took office, but that surplus was handed to Mr. Bush.

Again, the truth is the GOP hasn't been a fiscally responsible party since the days that Geral Ford was in the White House. That's going on 30 years ago. Now, Platy, you can argue all you want to the contrary, but the facts are in the figures.

We have two fiscally irresponsible parties, which is why I'd love to see a centrist party, that promots fiscal responsibility.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1408 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
On that, I agree. If the American people would vote out every incumbent, maybe that would send the message tha the same old same old isn't acceptable anymore. Demcrat or Republican, replace them all.

Then you would have a Republican majority again, ugh.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
Again, the truth is the GOP hasn't been a fiscally responsible party since the days that Geral Ford was in the White House. That's going on 30 years ago. Now, Platy, you can argue all you want to the contrary, but the facts are in the figures.

For six years under Bush, the Republicans were spending money faster than a drunk sailor and not one single veto from the President. And don't forget we can go to war without funding it.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1403 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 12):
Then you would have a Republican majority again, ugh.

Not necessarily. An incumbent can always lose in the primary.

But either way, I'd take it right now over what we have in Congress.


User currently offlinePlatypus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1403 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
Maybe this little graph in this article will show you how hollow and lame that last sentence is. Take a look at it, really good, Platy:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
The only surplus has been during the Clinton Administration

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

 footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth 


The only reason why Clinton had a surplus was because the GOP took over congress in 94!!! But, to be fair, that was the last functioning congress! Gw's was bad, and the current dem congress is the absolute worst!

Cheerio


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1397 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
The only surplus has been during the Clinton Administration, and the fiscal year where Bush took office, but that surplus was handed to Mr. Bush.

I hate to bust your bubble yet again but there was no surplus. There won't ever be a surplus as long as Social Security tax receipts are factored into the general fund instead of being set aside as they should be. When you factor in the FICA tax every President has had a deficit since LBJ. To get the supposed surplus in the Clinton years took the ending of the cold war, a GOP led Congress that was comitted to a balanced budget, and the gutting of the military for which we are paying the price today.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
We have two fiscally irresponsible parties, which is why I'd love to see a centrist party, that promots fiscal responsibility.

On that we can agree. Unfortunately the agreement would stop there since I'm sure your budget and mine are vastly different.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1397 times:



Quoting Platypus (Reply 14):

So, what about the fact that for the majority of the Bush years, we've had a GOP President AND GOP Congress? Are you going to give them hell for record deficits, or does it only count the last 18 months, when the Dems have controlled the purse strings, that you'll bitch and moan about it?

Fact remains, you're wrong, as usual. The GOP has NOT been a fiscally responsible party since 1977. The figures don't lie. But you're seemingly blind to the truth.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1392 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 15):
I hate to bust your bubble yet again but there was no surplus.

You righties can say that till you're blue in the face. Fact is a srplus was reported for 4 years running, and Bush squandered it. You're only saying that because of your dislike of President Clinton. That's the only reason. You guys just can't get over him ,can you?  rotfl 

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 15):
On that we can agree. Unfortunately the agreement would stop there since I'm sure your budget and mine are vastly different.

Yes. all of your goverment handouts would go to corporations and the wealthy.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1368 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
You're only saying that because of your dislike of President Clinton.

If you won't admit to a basic accounting flaw in all the administrations since the law was changed, by a DNC led Congress in the early 80's then there's not much to talk about. Any proper accounting will show that Social Security tax receipts go into the general fund and IOU's are essentially issued in their place. If you take out the Social Security tax receipt then every budget since 1967 has been in deficit. Every single one. It doesn't make any difference who was President or which party was in charge of Congress.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
Yes. all of your goverment handouts would go to corporations and the wealthy.

Well thanks for putting words in my mouth. Shame they are the wrong ones. But since you evidently like the taste of your foot I'll let you leave it there.


User currently offlinePlatypus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1335 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
You righties can say that till you're blue in the face.



Sadly, that's the only way you see the world, in the light of "liberal/conservative". I wouldn't matter if Satan himself ran as a Liberal. Because if he did, you'd give him two thumbs up, simply because he says he's "cLiberal".

Maybe, just maybe, if you let yourself out of that confined little box, that sees the world in such a limited scope, you might learn a few things. But I doubt you'll do that. Ignorance is so much more comforting.

Cheerio

[Edited 2008-07-28 19:37:19]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Can't This Man Be Our Next (US) President? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 01:01:20 by DL787932ER
Who Will Be The Next US President? posted Thu Feb 8 2007 07:40:01 by United Airline
Madonna! The Next US President? posted Wed Jan 17 2001 12:16:41 by Mx5_boy
Undecided For US President? This Will Help. posted Fri Feb 1 2008 08:26:39 by EWRCabincrew
McCain Thinks US President Should Be A Christian posted Mon Oct 1 2007 03:45:18 by LAXspotter
If A Woman Was Elected As US President... posted Sat Jul 14 2007 07:29:22 by LTU932
Best US President posted Tue Feb 6 2007 18:34:13 by B741
Rudy Giuliani To Run For US President posted Mon Feb 5 2007 20:23:17 by 9V
Most Favoured US President. posted Sat Dec 2 2006 18:57:46 by Captaink
Gerald Ford: Oldest Living US President posted Sun Nov 12 2006 15:01:24 by September11