Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Administration Increased Deficit To $9T  
User currently offlineStasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3286 posts, RR: 6
Posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1702 times:

"The U.S. government’s long-term budget outlook is darker than expected, with projected deficits over the next 10 years totaling $2 trillion more than had been forecast, according to an Obama administration official. A White House budget review set for release Aug. 25 will show cumulative deficits over the next decade amounting to $9 trillion, up from $7.1 trillion that the administration predicted in May."

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaNkaSFbrjmA#

In my opinion, the past 30 years of the US economy have displayed a huge increase in imported goods (mainly Chinese), illegal immigration (keeping unskilled labor costs down) and increase in foreign oil dependance, ALL purchased with an overvalued US dollar that kept prices low, except for things like healthcare and higher education....

[Edited 2009-08-21 17:35:00]


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8709 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1673 times:



Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
In my opinion, the past 30 years of the US economy have displayed a huge increase in imported goods (mainly Chinese), illegal immigration (keeping unskilled labor costs down) and increase in foreign oil dependance, ALL purchased with an overvalued US dollar that kept prices low, except for things like healthcare and higher education....

Okay, but what does that have to do with the government? The government did not buy those things...

The government spent too much money. And it won't be able to collect it through taxes. That's all the report is saying. It's not saying our economy is bad. Instead... it is simply saying... our government (in Washington, DC) spends lots of money without a plan for how to recover that money. I agree with some of your points BTW. Imported goods, however, are not something that influences the government P/L statement.

One solution, of course, is to cut government spending. It's much better than raising taxes. Cutting government just frees up resources for the free market to use and enjoy. This is exactly how the $9T can be found, by reducing government spending. The authorities in Washington, DC have every authority to amend contracts and balance the budget at once. It could be done in one afternoon. If Congress and the President really felt like doing it.

Meanwhile, Barack's "stimulus" philosophy actually scares people and causes them to save more. With that, it actually reverses its own stimulus. But they haven't gotten to that part of the textbook yet.


User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1668 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
One solution, of course, is to cut government spending. It's much better than raising taxes. Cutting government just frees up resources for the free market to use and enjoy.

I agree, the gov't spends way too much money that we don't have, and the people are the only ones feeling it through taxes. I suggest that they start by cutting spending on some high cost gov't agencies like border patrol and the DEA, ATF etc.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1664 times:

And yet I'm sure many on the left, who criticized Bush for amount that spent from 2001 to 2008, will find a way to excuse this.

User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9263 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1648 times:



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 3):
And yet I'm sure many on the left, who criticized Bush for amount that spent from 2001 to 2008, will find a way to excuse this.

 checkmark 

Of course they will!

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 2):
I suggest that they start by cutting spending on some high cost gov't agencies like border patrol and the DEA, ATF etc.

And how about the D.O.E? Our good ol' boy Carter started that department as a way to research renewable energy so that we wouldn't be so dependent on foreign oil or coal within the next 25 years...

If I may quote a catchphrase from "The A-Team," regarding a plan that went awry:

"I love how a plan comes together..."

Yep, my sentiments exactly...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineBWilliams From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1643 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 2):
high cost gov't agencies



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 2):
ATF

There's an idea. Most of the time, the BATF does little meaningful to protect us, instead busting everyday Joes for their gun collections because they're viewed as "evil", or because some bureaucrat comes up with some ambigulous regulation that catches otherwise-law-abiding citizens off-guard and turns them into felons. (922(r), for example).

Toss them out, that's a lot of federal employees off the payroll and resources freed up for actual crimefighting. I'm sure the FBI and Justice Department can take care of the ACTUAL threats from firearms -- those used in the commission of actual violent crime.



Regards, Brad Williams
User currently offlineUAL757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 806 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1594 times:



Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
with projected deficits over the next 10 years totaling $2 trillion more than had been forecast,

How the f**k can you be off by $2 TRILLION!?

With this administration, money might as well grow on trees because they sure spend like it.


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1546 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
Okay, but what does that have to do with the government? The government did not buy those things



Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
And it won't be able to collect it through taxes.

Let's run it down: Thanks to the feds, jobs are easily shipped over seas, so those workers do not pay a dime in American taxes. Likewise, thanks to cuts in boarder patrols by the feds, illegals enter the United states and are called "day laborers." Day laborers are paid under the table and do not pay a dime in taxes. So, with the government not getting any of those tax reciepts, that money is gone. Add to that the fact that corporations have been allowed to pay less and less in taxes for years and years. Yes, the government has been spending and done nothing at all to stop it. Even the accounting snafu called war just adds to that. Does not surpise me at all. Not even the finger pointing, which always ends up pointing left. The right will never ever be blamed for this at all. None of the borrowing from China, making it easier to ship jobs over seas, no child left behind, war, corporate farm subsidies. None of that is the fault of the right, ever, according to the right.

Quoting BWilliams (Reply 5):
does little meaningful to protect us, instead busting everyday Joes for their gun collections because they're viewed as "evil"

Tell me again why one single person needs a cache of automatic weapons?

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 4):
And how about the D.O.E? Our good ol' boy Carter started that department as a way to research renewable energy so that we wouldn't be so dependent on foreign oil or coal within the next 25 years

But, what Reagan, Bush, and the Republicans did to that department is just fine? Keeping us addicted to foreign oil and not having any renewable energy sources, thanks to Republicans is okay? Were you alive when gas was pushing $5 a gallon and everyone was cursing life in this country? If DOE followed the Carter plan, that would not have happened.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8709 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1508 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 7):
The right will never ever be blamed for this at all.

I blame both sides. But I won't agree that our tax receipts can be called "small." They are huge. The question is whether our govt is big enough, and whether we can start choking the guts out of it. I say yes, let's choke it just like every business and every family has its fondest desires "choked" by the reality that money is finite. This is not a bad thing; it is actually a good thing. It focuses the mind.

We can cut a lot of spending, and we should to eliminate the $9T federal funding deficit. I don't mean just cut the "discretionary" budget, but also cut the "non-discretionary" budget that people think is guaranteed. It ain't. The US government makes the laws of the land. They have total freedom to solve the problem, amend contracts, whatever.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 7):
Thanks to the feds, jobs are easily shipped over seas, so those workers do not pay a dime in American taxes.

Hmm, but as recently as 2006, our unemployment % was at all-time lows. And wages were at or near all-time highs. So, I am not sure who could have earned more money, or paid more taxes. People often focus on "lost jobs" without admitting that we have plenty of jobs. Even today, our unemployment rate will go down again even if our old factory jobs do not return. We have enough jobs without the government prescribing an industrial policy for us. In 2006, it was not possible to deny that. Soon, it will again be impossible to deny that our jobs picture is OK, and our people make good money. Money ain't the problem. It's how we spend it.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 7):
Keeping us addicted to foreign oil and not having any renewable energy sources, thanks to Republicans is okay?

You're right, that is dumb for us to do.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1499 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 7):

Tell me again why one single person needs a cache of automatic weapons?

Because automatic weapons are fun to shoot.  yes 

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 7):
But, what Reagan, Bush, and the Republicans did to that department is just fine? Keeping us addicted to foreign oil and not having any renewable energy sources, thanks to Republicans is okay? Were you alive when gas was pushing $5 a gallon and everyone was cursing life in this country? If DOE followed the Carter plan, that would not have happened.

Didnt Bush and other Republicans try to push for drilling in ANWR and off the California coast to help alleviate some of dependence on foreign oil, only to have it shot down by lefties? Why, yes they did. And many Republicans are all for things such as nuclear engery, but this is also shot down by many leftists. And don't forget lefties like Ted Kennedy, who only support renewable energy sources so long as it won't ruin the view from his home on the bay!

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 7):
no child left behind

No Child Left Behind was pushed by Bush and was done in cooperation with many Democrats in Congress, including Ted Kennedy. Many conservatives were against "No Child Left Behind".

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 7):
None of that is the fault of the right, ever, according to the right.

Yet I don't see you doing too much blaming of the left on here.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 7):
If DOE followed the Carter plan, that would not have happened.

Prices for gas peaked in 1980, and at the time, Carterwas President, so if the D.O.E. didn't follow this "Carter Plan" while Carter was in office, that's Carter's failure in leadership to enact his own policies. But hey, why let that fact get in the way?


User currently offlineBWilliams From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1492 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 7):
Tell me again why one single person needs a cache of automatic weapons?

Because an automatic weapon in and of itself isn't dangerous. Violent crime with firearms cause harm, not the firearms themselves.

Not to mention: automatic weapons aren't the only thing the BATF regulates. If I was to cut my shotgun barrel down to less then 18" (or purchase such barrel for my existing shotgun), I'd now a felon for no reason other then I did not pay a $200 tax to the ATF. This has NOTHING to do with safety.

Another example: 922(r). If I were to purchase a Russian SKS and replace the original wood stock with a composite stock, leaving all other parts original, I'd become a felon for "assembing [a] semiautomatic rifle ... banned from importation". To be compliant, I would have to replace enough other parts so that 10 or fewer components are of foreign origin. As most aftermarket stocks are not sold with a warning regarding this law, it's quite easy to see a case where someone inadvertantly violates 922(r) ... and the BATF would absolutely press felony charges.



And, of course ... almost all firearms laws carry a felony penalty. Therefore, being convicted of any of these innane "crimes" would also mean that said person is no longer allowed under the law to own any firearms. The BATF doesn't care about safety ... they care about gun control.


Although...

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 9):
Because automatic weapons are fun to shoot.




Regards, Brad Williams
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1479 times:



Quoting BWilliams (Reply 10):
Because an automatic weapon in and of itself isn't dangerous. Violent crime with firearms cause harm, not the firearms themselves.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Trite. Over used. Been there. Done that. So, some guy walks into a health club and starts gunning everyone down with a legally purchased automatic weapon because his girlfriend broke up with him. That does not disturb anyone? A sane and reasonable person could just snap like that? Don't you think one person owning automatic weapons is a bad thing? No, I guess not, since "guns don't kill people, people kill people." For that matter, I am a mass murderer waiting to happen. I own a PT and could very easily mow down innocent bystanders on the Embarcadero. Why not regulate cars? Oh, wait....

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
Hmm, but as recently as 2006, our unemployment % was at all-time lows. And wages were at or near all-time highs.

And we all saw how that bubble burst.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 9):
Didnt Bush and other Republicans try to push for drilling in ANWR and off the California coast to help alleviate some of dependence on foreign oil,

But, what good would that do if OPEC are the ones setting prices? We could drill out 800 billion barrels of oil a day, but if OPEC decides the price should be $140 a barrel, what good is that? ExxonMobile, BP, Shell, and all the others will still charge outrageous sums at the pump because that is what OPEC is forcing, they will say. However, if we, the United States, were to use hydrogen fuel cells, batteries, biodiesel, soybeans or cat poop, to power our automobiles we, as a nation, would not be held hostage by OPEC anymore. They could charge $800 a barrel for oil and countries like China and India would bear the brunt of that mess. Just because we have more oil means nothing if we can not control the price.


Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 9):
And many Republicans are all for things such as nuclear engery, but this is also shot down by many leftists. And don't forget lefties like Ted Kennedy, who only support renewable energy sources so long as it won't ruin the view from his home on the bay!

Ummmm.... Try again. Many on the left are for nuclear energy, as well. I have been to Santa Barbara and have seen the oil rigs off shore. Again, it does not change the fact that we do not control the prices. Coal plants, which was supported whole heartedly by the right, are horrid in smell alone. I have been through southwest Wyoming and it REEKED!!!

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 9):
No Child Left Behind was pushed by Bush and was done in cooperation with many Democrats in Congress, including Ted Kennedy. Many conservatives were against "No Child Left Behind".

Try again. Many Dems were against it from the start. After they saw what it had devolved into, even more were against it.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 9):
Yet I don't see you doing too much blaming of the left on here.

I never said the left was blameless. I just know the mind and emotions of the right and know they will never ever see the enemy as themselves.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 9):
that's Carter's failure in leadership to enact his own policies.

Filibuster by Republicans. Being held up in comittee. Being watered down. Not wanting to shove anything down anyones throats since this is America. Nah. Couldn't be any of that.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1448 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
I own a PT and could very easily mow down innocent bystanders on the Embarcadero. Why not regulate cars? Oh, wait..

The regulation of cars and guns are completely different. So I really have no idea where you're going with that one. And you make it sound as though people snap and go shoot up schools and hospitals every day of the year.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
But, what good would that do if OPEC are the ones setting prices? We could drill out 800 billion barrels of oil a day, but if OPEC decides the price should be $140 a barrel, what good is that? ExxonMobile, BP, Shell, and all the others will still charge outrageous sums at the pump because that is what OPEC is forcing, they will say. However, if we, the United States, were to use hydrogen fuel cells, batteries, biodiesel, soybeans or cat poop, to power our automobiles we, as a nation, would not be held hostage by OPEC anymore. They could charge $800 a barrel for oil and countries like China and India would bear the brunt of that mess. Just because we have more oil means nothing if we can not control the price.

The flaws of your argument are pointed out so you go from arguing about who we're buying it from to the price for it. Nice. Your original point was about dependence on foreign oil, not how much we're paying at the pump. Stick that and address that first.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
Try again. Many Dems were against it from the start. After they saw what it had devolved into, even more were against it.

What do you mean "Try again"? Here's the Senate voting record for No Child Left Behind;
87 Yays, 10 Nays, 3 No Votes
The Nays:
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay

So the record shows plenty of your Democrats voted for it as well, in a Senate that was 50-49-1. The Republicans share the blame on that one, but the Democrats are not immune, depsite you wishing they were.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
Ummmm.... Try again. Many on the left are for nuclear energy, as well. I have been to Santa Barbara and have seen the oil rigs off shore.

I didn't say all on the left were against it. But usually the objections to nuclear power come from environmental weenies who complain about the dumping of nuclear wasted, who happen to be heavily associated with the left.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
I never said the left was blameless. I just know the mind and emotions of the right and know they will never ever see the enemy as themselves.

And those on the left will never the enemy as themselves, so I guess that doesn't make them any different, does it?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
Filibuster by Republicans. Being held up in comittee. Being watered down. Not wanting to shove anything down anyones throats since this is America. Nah. Couldn't be any of that.

Failure in Carter's leadership to enact the policies of his own cabinet.  yes 

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
Hmm, but as recently as 2006, our unemployment % was at all-time lows. And wages were at or near all-time highs.

And we all saw how that bubble burst.

The bubble will always burst, whether you like it or not. That's how economy works. It goes up and it goes down. The Dot-Com bubble busted right at the end of Clinton's term. The 80s Bubble busted right at the end of Reagan's term.


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...
Obama Administration's Numbers Just Don't Add Up posted Sun Jun 7 2009 22:32:48 by FreequentFlier
Obama "Unlikely" To Widen The Afghan War posted Sat Jan 31 2009 17:37:53 by StasisLAX
Obama Is Too Far To The Right posted Thu Jan 15 2009 11:36:31 by WellHung
Obama Still Senator According To Senate.gov posted Mon Nov 17 2008 09:29:28 by Bmacleod
The Obama Administration - Cabinet Speculation posted Tue Nov 4 2008 21:56:55 by Moderators
Obama/McCain US Rivals To Make 9/11 Appearance posted Sat Sep 6 2008 14:42:44 by Oa260
Secret Service Stretched To Limit Protecting Obama posted Tue Aug 4 2009 19:50:12 by StasisLAX
ABC Tries To Cover Up Obama's "glance" posted Fri Jul 10 2009 07:03:16 by JakeOrion
Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone? posted Tue Jul 7 2009 19:13:02 by QXatFAT
JibJib: Barack Obama, He's Come To Save The Day posted Sat Jun 20 2009 07:35:27 by D L X