Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Tells Reporter U.S. Gov't Is "out Of Money"!  
User currently offlineStasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3286 posts, RR: 6
Posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

President Obama told the following to a C-Span cable news reporter on Monday when asked "the national deficit (is) $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?"

"We are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen - and in fact - our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades."

Scary comment from the President - basically stating that U.S. government funded entitlements (like Social Security Disability and Medicare) are draining the federal government finances because unless the federal government can find a way to reduce health care inflation over the long term in some very substantial manner , "we can't get control of the deficit".

Helping the automotive and financial services industries can't be helping us either, IMO. Yikes  scared 

Source: http://drudgereport.com/flashocs.htm


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUAXDXer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 765 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

If this is true.... I wonder how he was able to squeez out a few extra nickles for the Air Force One Photo Op with the Statue of Liberty?


It takes a bug to hit a windsheild but it takes guts to stick
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8030 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3369 times:

We have an even bigger problem, one that even the Obama Administration would privately admit to: liquid assets estimated between US$12 to US$17 TRILLION (not a misprint!) owned by American citizens and businesses sitting in offshore financial centers (OFCs) around the world to keep them out of the clutches of the IRS.

What would happen if the USA changes their national and state taxation structure so it encourages American citizens and businesses to keep those assets here in the USA? Most of that money I mentioned would return to the USA in no time flat, resulting in the world's largest "private bailout," one that would stop the stock market stagnation in no time flat and easily recapitalizing many distressed corporations around the USA.

This is why the FairTax proposal (H.R. 25/S. 296) is attracting more and more support, because it would repeal the 16th Amendment and replace the income tax system with a consumption tax system that rewards keeping money in banks and capital investment in the USA.


User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3346 times:



Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 1):
If this is true.... I wonder how he was able to squeez out a few extra nickles for the Air Force One Photo Op with the Statue of Liberty?

As has been said many many times, there was no extra cost for the flight. The only extra cost of this photo op would be the film and prints of the photo.
Pilots and aircrew have a minimum number of hours and approaches and landings they need to do per month (or whatever timeframe). I can tell you they did at least one landing on the flight and logged some hours, if they had not have gotten them on the photo op flight they would have gottem them on another flight which means no cost difference!



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Well, Obama has to make the more leftist supporters of to understand that there is a limit to government spending and that what was done up to now was considered as an emergency measure only and only for a limited period.
Making it clear that the kitty is empty does exactly this job.
Our own leftists (left wing of the SPD and the neo-communist Linkspartei) also think that government money is unlimited and that an unemployed (non-working) person should be entitled to the same lifestyle asa person with a good income through work, which is obviously completely illusory. Especially the Linkspartei aims at low income and unemployed people with populist spending programmes, and when asked how they plan to finance them, they always propose maximum taxing of wealthy people to an insane degree.
Now, I'm middle class, with a slightly above average income, and, while I see the necessity of having government welfare programmes to keep social peace (and I alsolike to have them in place as a safety net in case of job loss or invalidity), I don't see them as a substitute for regular income.
I also don't begrudge CEOs and similar people higher salaries and bonuses, PROVIDED THEY DO THE JOB WELL THAT THEY GET HIRED FOR.
What I hate are CEOs, who do a lousy job, bankrupt the business and still get off with a golden parachute.

Jan


User currently offlineBoeing74741R From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 1180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3312 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 4):
Well, Obama has to make the more leftist supporters of to understand that there is a limit to government spending and that what was done up to now was considered as an emergency measure only and only for a limited period.
Making it clear that the kitty is empty does exactly this job.

The leftist response would be to increase taxes on the rich.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3238 times:

This is silly, and illustrative of a President who talks out of both sides of his mouth. The President says, "We are out of money" and yet goes full speed ahead with spending programs that create trillion dollar deficits even 10 years from now. Will the Obama apologists please stop pretending that the financial crisis has anything to do with trillion dollar deficits 2,3,4,and 10 years from now?

To the people paying attention, the bond markets are already falling apart. I can only imagine what this will do to the nation's finances 5 or 10 years from now. I've said that history will look upon this Presidency as possibly the worst one in American history. History is slowly bearing this out.

Unfortunately, the pain doesn't come until later when it is too late to fix it. The correction will be more than painful.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3172 times:



Quoting Boeing74741R (Reply 5):
The leftist response would be to increase taxes on the rich

It will indeed ... because to the leftist the rich are the enemy. The self reliant , and the citizens who achieve on there own are to be brought down to size. It is step 101 in the hand book. We know it , we see it happening . And now they talk about spending a trillion a year to give us free health care ... if that happens America is done .. we will never recover. And right now I see nothing stopping it from happening .

This is the change they were talking about , it really is ... its a sweeping socialist agenda.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8915 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3167 times:



Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
"We are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen - and in fact - our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades."

Well stop the bloody SPENDING!!!  banghead   banghead   banghead 



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3156 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 7):
This is the change they were talking about , it really is ... its a sweeping socialist agenda.

I think Margaret Thatcher said it best.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.”


User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RayChuang (Reply 2):
We have an even bigger problem, one that even the Obama Administration would privately admit to: liquid assets estimated between US$12 to US$17 TRILLION (not a misprint!) owned by American citizens and businesses sitting in offshore financial centers (OFCs) around the world to keep them out of the clutches of the IRS.

Wouldn't that be considered tax evasion? Which, IIRC, is illegal. Maybe we should task the IRS to try and recover some of those assets.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3136 times:



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 6):
I've said that history will look upon this Presidency as possibly the worst one in American history. History is slowly bearing this out.

Wow. Dubya sets the standard for worst, and Obama will eclipse it? That's nasty, and very quick.

But ... there's no question that he's going to preside over the decline and fall of the American empire, largely through a continuation (and rapid acceleration) of the Bush deficit strategy. Unsupportable debt has been the downfall of a lot of great nations. I just hope you have a soft landing.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days ago) and read 3117 times:



Quoting Arrow (Reply 11):
I just hope you have a soft landing.

It will be interesting indeed ... I believe however that it will be for all intents and purposes a "soft " decline. A hard landing so to speak ... a crash ... would be a very bad event for every other nation on earth. Just imagine a crash bad enough to stop support of all of the products the US manufactures.. ie GE products , Pratt Whitney , Boeing , Microsoft , IBM, Rockwell , Honeywell , Lockheed ...etc. It would paralyze alot of technology and systems in the worlds economies. Not to mention put millions out of work all over the world. It will still be many years until the complete de coupling of our products and currency is completed , but hey they are working on it .

Quoting Arrow (Reply 11):
, largely through a continuation (and rapid acceleration) of the Bush deficit strategy

Dont think the convenient comparison holds up. However I cant deny the spending done by the republicans has not given the excuse the democrats need too enact their insane policies.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8915 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days ago) and read 3108 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 10):
Wouldn't that be considered tax evasion? Which, IIRC, is illegal. Maybe we should task the IRS to try and recover some of those assets.

Multiple points to this.

Many countries of the world tax their companies and citizens based on the principle of teritoriality. You pay your taxes where you earned it. the US does not do this - instead it uses a Worldwide taxation system, which will tax you based on all your income worldwide.

All that foreign money may be entirely legal - i.e. the owners invested elsewhere in the world, and paid all applicable taxes - local and/or US. So if you are advocating the confiscation of that money without any crime being committed, you run the risk of running afoul of the 4th amendment. It would also be a clear signal of an extreme form of socialism, which I doubt Americans really want.

I wish the US would change to a territorial system.

- The Territorial tax system has plenty of positives including the inability of a resident or entity to be taxed twice.

- Territorially tax systems for the most part are easier to administer. Worldwide tax systems require a large bureaucracy to administer and enforce tax laws.

- Following a worldwide tax system can be extremely complicated and confusing for tax payers.

- Territorial tax systems also are pro free market. They boost the competitivness of US corporations doing business within another country's borders.

- Worldwide tax systems usually hurt free enterprise by forcing a resident or company operating outside one's borders to double taxation in many instances. Even with foreign tax allowances, many times the US tax rates are so high, there is very little relief.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3038 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Many countries of the world tax their companies and citizens based on the principle of teritoriality. You pay your taxes where you earned it. the US does not do this - instead it uses a Worldwide taxation system, which will tax you based on all your income worldwide.

Yes, and one of the lesser-known evils of this approach is that a US citizen, or even a green card holder, who leaves the US to live in another country, even take out citizenship in that country, is still required by the IRS to file an annual USA tax return. This is true even if your US income is zero (which it is for most). For most returns, the IRS allows the foreign taxes paid to be sufficient -- but not always.

The only way a lapsed US citizen can get around this is to formally renounce their citizenship -- which is a bit too draconian for most folks to stomach. And, here's the Catch-22; if the State Department decides you're only renouncing for tax purposes, they won't allow it.

Many ex-pats are completely unaware of this, and those that do know usually ignore it. But if they try to enter the US on a visit, and customs asks the right questions, they can be in a nasty little mess. I've got friends who are US ex-pats who refuse to visit the US now because of the risk.

Most nations, as you state, tax based on residence. I've always thought this IRS extra-territorial approach is rather ironic, when you consider that one of the rallying cries of the American revolution was "No taxation without representation."



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8030 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3036 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 10):
Wouldn't that be considered tax evasion? Which, IIRC, is illegal. Maybe we should task the IRS to try and recover some of those assets.

Here's the worst part: most of that money estimated between US$12 and US$17 TRILLION was put in those offshore financial centers completely legally using the tax loopholes in that ravenous monster called the Internal Revenue Code, which is a mind-boggling 67,500-plus pages of regulation and rulings about as understandable as James Joyce's Finnegans Wake.  no 

We need to consign the Internal Revenue Code to the dustbin of history and replace it with something like FairTax, not only to bring all that money back to the USA to revive the US economy but also save Americans at least US$350 billion per year (and rising per year from now on!) in tax compliance costs.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3002 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
I think Margaret Thatcher said it best.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.”

As we've seen recently she had it backwards – in reality, it's apparently the motto of laissez-faire capitalism!  mischievous 


Ah, I love the smell of stereotypes burning up in the light of reality...!  cool 


User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RayChuang (Reply 15):
We need to consign the Internal Revenue Code to the dustbin of history and replace it with something like FairTax, not only to bring all that money back to the USA to revive the US economy but also save Americans at least US$350 billion per year (and rising per year from now on!) in tax compliance costs.

I've felt for a long time that we need to just scrap the income tax and replace it with a flat tax based not on income but on Net Worth, that way everyone takes the same basic hit relative to their worth, Bill Gates takes a 4 billion dollar hit, the guy in suburbia worth 150k takes a 15,000 dollar hit.

Short of scrapping the income tax and adopting some kind of flat tax, whether it's based on net wort or something else, i do think we need to place the onus for reporting on the government. Rather than the individual taxpayer having to report, the government sends him a form detailing what it's been told by his employer, investment houses, mortgage company, etc, which all have to provide information to the IRS anyway. If what the IRS is reporting matches the records of the individual tax payer, he simply signs the form, attaches a check if applicable, and sends it back. If he feels the IRS is wrong, there would be a system in place to challenge their data.

Or we could just go back to raising revenue the way the founding fathers mandated it be done in the consitution, tariffs. Of course, if the government had to survive only on tariffs, either the government would shrink considerably, which might not be a bad thing, or the tariffs on foreign goods would be so ridiculous as to strangle us internationally via long drawn out trade wars.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineDavehammer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2975 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
As we've seen recently she had it backwards – in reality, it's apparently the motto of laissez-faire capitalism! mischievous


Ah, I love the smell of stereotypes burning up in the light of reality...! cool

Thatcher was right and so are you to an extent in my book. The problem is that too many people like to spend other peoples money period.


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2962 times:



Quoting RayChuang (Reply 2):
This is why the FairTax proposal (H.R. 25/S. 296) is attracting more and more support, because it would repeal the 16th Amendment and replace the income tax system with a consumption tax system that rewards keeping money in banks and capital investment in the USA.

I would want to see the 16th amendment repealed first. Then and only then would I be willing to see them rewrite tax codes. If not the temptation for politicians like President Obama and such would be to leave the amendment to die and still take in more taxes via the VAT or CT.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 3):
Pilots and aircrew have a minimum number of hours and approaches and landings they need to do per month (or whatever timeframe).

Which they can legally and safely do in a simulator which costs a lot less per hour than actually flying the airplane around.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 11):
Wow. Dubya sets the standard for worst, and Obama will eclipse it? That's nasty, and very quick.

Unfortunately it will continue at all levels of politics as well for the foreseeable future. Persons who would make really good candidates no longer feel the office is worth the amount of personal privacy invasion as well as name/reputation bashing that comes with it. Only those with an addicition to power seem to be interested in obtaining office anymore. I miss Senators like Pat Moynihan and Bob Dole. They were probably some of the last Senators I can think of that actually put the country first in their thinking. Not the government, but the country.

It's becoming apparent that President Obama tells the crowd or individual that he is standing in front of what they want to hear. So when asked if we are out of money he says yes and blames it on someone else. When asked if we will be able to pay for all the goodies he wants to provide he says yes, we will have the money. To date no one seems to have the gumption to ask him to explain these two contradicting thoughts.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2947 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 19):
To date no one seems to have the gumption to ask him to explain these two contradicting thoughts.

How can they? He doesn't take questions from reporters anymore. The last three times I've seen him in front of a podium, he immediately departs for the nearest exit. That must have been the only advice he actually took from the previous President in all those friendly chats they were having on TV.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2940 times:



Quoting Davehammer (Reply 18):
Thatcher was right and so are you to an extent in my book. The problem is that too many people like to spend other peoples money period.

As I've said earlier, both extreme ideologies have met their demise.

Neither has the answer to our problems and neither works in its pure form; What we need is more pragmatism, more competence and less ideology.


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2927 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 19):
Only those with an addicition to power seem to be interested in obtaining office anymore.

I think that's been true for a long, long time, and it permeates all sides of the political spectrum. But we've created that monster by demanding a level of performance that no human being could ever achieve. We also expect to agree with everything they do -- and if they stray from that because of prudence or expediency, we regularly trash them for sacrificing their principles. Who in his right mind (other than those lusting for power) would want that job?

Obama's problem (and it would have been McCain's, too, if he had won) is the unrealistic expectations of the electorate, to wit, please save us all from ourselves. He can't do it. He can't overcome in a few months what has been festering for decades. Unfortunately, he's trying to do it by mortgaging the country's future for decades to come. It will be interesting to see how these latest bond issues perform. The short term bonds did all right, but it's those 5-7 year issues that will determine what the rest of the world thinks about US prospects for pulling itself out of the hole. I think Obama is actually digging the hole deeper.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2910 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
How can they? He doesn't take questions from reporters anymore.

?

Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
President Obama told the following to a C-Span cable news reporter on Monday when asked "the national deficit (is) $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?"

He probably thought a C-span reporter would ask him something much more innocuous, like "how's the dog thing working out?" or some such drivel. That reporter has probably already received notice that there is no longer a seat available in the back of AF1 anymore.  wink   duck 

Quoting Arrow (Reply 22):
Obama's problem (and it would have been McCain's, too, if he had won) is the unrealistic expectations of the electorate, to wit, please save us all from ourselves.

Agreed. Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and several other programs have all been in dire need of revamping for 20-30 years but each successive Congress has punted.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8221 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2897 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 23):

?

I was taking a swipe at Obama's so-called transparency. He hardly ever takes questions from reporters live - about as rarely as his predecessor did. Methinks they've got everything pre-cleared through the Gibbs office first.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
25 Dreadnought : That's pretty apparent. Every press conference he has held, he calls on reporters from a list - who gets chosen and (I'm sure) what questions they wi
26 DXing : Which reporters are going to get called upon is really not new. That goes back quite aways. Probably to President Kennedy at least. As to the nature
27 StasisLAX : There's a second American revolution coming - mark my words!
28 Post contains links UAXDXer : Ok fine.... Then does he and the wife need to jet set to NYC for a night on the town on the tax payers dime? Is there not enough culture in DC? http:
29 Runway23 : Gimme a break. The US already taxes Americans living abroad - no other country does that. You're also forgetting how much money flows into the US - M
30 Post contains images StasisLAX : AND how many times did George W. fly to Camp David or Crawford, TX to "chop wood" - I mean, Bush was known within the Beltway as the "vacation presid
31 UAXDXer : Bush wasn't the one telling reporters the we're out of money. Bush wasn't the one blasting CEO's for the use of private jet's then turning around and
32 Aaron747 : I thought everybody understood these things are permitted because of the incredible trouble and disruption caused by the President using normal modes
33 UAXDXer : No... you gimme a break! Is there not enough places to go in DC for a date night? Does he need to spend tax payers money on un-nessesary, non-busines
34 Aaron747 : He promised her before the campaign he would take her to a Broadway show of her choice. The National theatre in DC is nice, but it's not the same. Ho
35 Post contains links FreequentFlier : And this makes it the taxpayer's responsibility why? Considering the White House won't release to the press how much the trip cost, that's pretty muc
36 Aaron747 : Give me a break - we're lambasting a man for being good to a woman who has given him unimaginable support and understanding over the last several yea
37 Post contains links UAXDXer : I doubt it.... Not as long as our "Un-Biased" Network News Anchors have anything to say about it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katie-...eech-to-prin
38 UAXDXer : You're missing the point.... The title of this thread is "Obama Tells Reporter U.S. Gov't is Out of Money." If the Government is out of money, then w
39 Post contains links FreequentFlier : Look, he can do whatever he wants with her on his own dime. They seem happy together and if he wants a date night, that's his prerogative. And if he
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...
The Best Country To Live In - Left Out Of "Sicko" posted Thu Nov 29 2007 11:42:10 by KaiGywer
Postal Service Running Out Of Money? posted Wed May 6 2009 13:55:55 by Nkops
Georgia Public Defenders Out Of Money posted Wed Feb 7 2007 05:38:38 by Ilikeyyc
The FCC Is Getting Out Of Hand... posted Tue Jan 18 2005 11:25:26 by MxCtrlr
Judiciary Is Totally Out Of Control posted Thu Nov 6 2003 18:57:05 by Apathoid
So, Now Is France Out Of World Cup? posted Wed Jun 5 2002 01:07:44 by 727LOVER
"Nordic Model Is The Future Of Capitalism" posted Thu Mar 26 2009 02:23:40 by AverageUser
"Dollar" Bill Jefferson Out Of U.S Senate posted Sun Dec 7 2008 09:52:26 by MSYtristar
And 2006's Word Of The Year Is: "Plutoed" posted Mon Jan 8 2007 00:42:29 by Coal
"Grey's Anatomy" Star Comes Out Of Closet posted Fri Oct 20 2006 18:59:53 by 727LOVER