User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 pm

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/30/news/economy/deficit-2013-treasury/

Wow less than half of the deficit that George Bush's last budget left us with. Amazing.

  

How could we have accomplished this with higher taxes in 2013?
  

Seriously though, it isn't all the way back, but it is indicative of the coming recovery as revenues rise with better earnings. I expect 2014 to be even better on the back of the Stock Market Recovery.

Any thoughts on how the recovery is going?

What will happen when interest on the debt rises, will the recovery cover it?
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Osubuckeyes
Posts: 1680
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:05 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:35 pm

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
Any thoughts on how the recovery is going?

Cutting the deficit is the first step of many. This is heading in the right direction for sure. Back in 2008 I wrote a paper one why the housing crisis would cause 10 year stagnation of the economy. Many of those issues including offering sub prime loans or subsidizing housing loans have not been solved and that it a big issue. The unemployment rate has gone down, but the labor participation rate has stayed consistent over the past few years. When you see labor participation increasing is when you will start to see actual substantial growth. Until then we will remain relatively stagnant, or grow slow.

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
What will happen when interest on the debt rises, will the recovery cover it?

Hard to say. We can look at what is happening and Europe and make some assumptions, but inherently our situation is a bit different. A lot of it depends on the monetary policy of the fed. Also, it depends on if we hit another economic "bubble". Some are predicting a student loan "bubble", which would be adversely affected by raising interest rates on the debt. Basically there are tons of factors and the safest bet is to expect stagnation.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:39 pm

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

And wait to see what happens to it when the "Quantitative Easing" ends. That policy is spending $85 Billion a month to buy (and reissue) outstanding debt. That right there is $1T a year, so the deficit is about to get a lot better.

It is amazing what happens when the economy improves and revenues increase (more tax revenue flowing in) and expenses decrease (less services needed such as welfare and food stamps and unemployment) etc. It is not that hard to balance a budget, it is just hard for people to agree on what the correct way is to do so. Lots of ways will work.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:17 pm

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
Many of those issues including offering sub prime loans or subsidizing housing loans have not been solved and that it a big issue.

Sub prime loans should be pretty well cleaned out by now. I can see that there might be a lot of home loans "underwater". We saw that in TUL during the Reagan years when oil patch went into an economic crisis. Home prices took a huge dive in values. A friend with one of those houses took the position that he had the same house with the same mortgage payment so he was just going to stop worrying about it. That was long enough ago that he's clear and can make a nice profit on the house.

In terms of subsidizing housing, when the wife & I moved into our first home (on the GI bill) there were families moving into the neighborhood on a "235 loan" program. This was 40+ years ago and that program was stable in our neighborhood. The difference, IMO, is that we had reputable people in the financial sector who ensured people could pay their mortgages.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
When you see labor participation increasing is when you will start to see actual substantial growth. Until then we will remain relatively stagnant, or grow slow.

I'm looking for a poverty level minimum wage to be effectively addressed.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
Also, it depends on if we hit another economic "bubble". Some are predicting a student loan "bubble", which would be adversely affected by raising interest rates on the debt.

We know how to fix that. The new student loan program from Obama should be extended to all student loans. Our risk of a bubble is based on the profit levels private lenders are pulling in. I don't believe that students should have to prop up profits in the financial sector. So let's refinance the loans to provide some stability and reduces changes of a bubble.

Maybe we can also put some responsibility on the universities, and for-profit colleges. Fail to deliver performance and the government gets a refund to reduce those loans.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:23 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
The new student loan program from Obama should be extended to all student loans.

Actually student loans are one thing I think need to be reigned in. At least somewhat. The low cost of them makes it too easy to borrow and means too many get too far into debt as the price for college education increases due the availability of cheap money.

The issue is similar to the sub-prime mortgage loans you don't like. Loans need rules on them to prevent deleterious effects.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Osubuckeyes
Posts: 1680
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:05 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:49 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
Sub prime loans should be pretty well cleaned out by now.

They are still being offered, but the biggest difference is that they aren't tied into securities and sold on Wall Street. Lenders are willing to offer loans to people with poor credit history with larger down payments, but i fear that it is a slippery slope, because nothing really stops people from foreclosing again since they already have.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
The difference, IMO, is that we had reputable people in the financial sector who ensured people could pay their mortgages.

I would agree, but my concern is that people in this country have a problem with spending huge amounts of money that they do not have without understanding the consequences of it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
Maybe we can also put some responsibility on the universities, and for-profit colleges. Fail to deliver performance and the government gets a refund to reduce those loans.

I think there are several problems here and you definitely hit the nail on the head for a few of them. Universities very much act like big businesses these days it seems. Also, we have a culture in which everyone is encouraged to go to college for some reason even when it is not needed, or appropriate. There needs to be a complete shift in the thinking that goes into giving out student loans. Perhaps for another thread.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
I'm looking for a poverty level minimum wage to be effectively addressed.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...es/federal-poverty-guidelines.html

According to this, unless it is wrong the poverty level for a household of 1 is 11,400, which is well under minimum wage. A household size of 2 level for poverty is 15500, which slightly above minimum wage.

I agree that we need to tie minimum wage to inflation/CPI, but I don't think it needs drastic adjustments.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:54 am

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
Many of those issues including offering sub prime loans or subsidizing housing loans have not been solved and that it a big issue.

They have been solved a bit. I think fear is a good thing, and I think a lot of areas have it. However there is a big issue in the fact that before the "crisis" a lot of people made a lot of money on flipping houses. The 100% loans are a scary thing, and I don't think they adequately address risk for the lender in many situations. Flippers draw in folks that want a home, and the whole thing may repeat. The cycle however may be shorter or more suspect than in the past.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
The unemployment rate has gone down, but the labor participation rate has stayed consistent over the past few years

I am not sure we escape this , especially after my father retired at such a young age, and the fact that my wife is staying home with the kids due to Preschool costs and and time vs value equations . That is a thread for a later date.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
Some are predicting a student loan "bubble", which would be adversely affected by raising interest rates on the debt

If interest rates go up, it will be a double whammy for the students that road out the crisis by getting more school in careers that don't pay dividends on the investment. Sanscrift scholars, MBA's , extra lawyers on the low tier. There is a crisis waiting to happen.

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
It is not that hard to balance a budget, it is just hard for people to agree on what the correct way is to do so. Lots of ways will work.

Lot's of ways work, but when certain parties are unable to use some of the tools in the toolbox it makes things more difficult for certain classes of people. Progressive taxes work well for a reason, and the Government should not be hesitant to use them when needed. The Government does also need to give a break to those that receive the burden when times are good though.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
but i fear that it is a slippery slope, because nothing really stops people from foreclosing again since they already have

Well hopefully those that foreclosed will not easily get an "easy" loan the next time around, but I do not know much about how careful banks are being in scrutinizing past loan failures. That is something that hopefully the banks are taking care of so as not to become more Countrywide's . Bank of America and Chase have a lot of loans from that mess, and I am sure they will be very wary of loaning it out. However that is not to say that another "Countrywide" will not show up.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
I would agree, but my concern is that people in this country have a problem with spending huge amounts of money that they do not have without understanding the consequences of it.

People do have that problem, but in most cases 30-40 year loans, people have accepted that he pay off is getting what you want now instead of later. Perhaps a bit more delayed gratification is in order and banks should require 10-20% down payments for purchases on houses or cards no matter what.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
. There needs to be a complete shift in the thinking that goes into giving out student loans. Perhaps for another thread

We need another thread for that one. I could offer some ideas. Engineers, doctors, teachers should all get subsidies. Politicians, Liberal Arts majors get no breaks unless they are acing the courses, and there is a true demand for their degree. Post doc students should qualify for progressive breaks based on major and class ranking . think this level of competition would make our schools better, and make our students better.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
According to this, unless it is wrong the poverty level for a household of 1 is 11,400, which is well under minimum wage. A household size of 2 level for poverty is 15500, which slightly above minimum wage.

11,400 seems awfully low to me, but as a single person in college I usually got by on less. But loans and family helped. The sad part of it is that a lot of those really in the poverty level are single mom's with kids. That is something that is really hard to address.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:29 am

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
Wow less than half of the deficit that George Bush's last budget left us with. Amazing.

That's both factually incorrect and misleading. The last full year of Bush's term, the U.S. ran a deficit of $454 billion. Not that one year tells a complete picture. Over two terms, the Bush administration averaged a deficit of $250 billion dollars per year. That sounds quaint these days.

Even if you want to attribute the 2009 spending spree to Bush, he averaged $375 billion per year.

My biggest frustration with the Obama deficits is what the heck have we been getting? With all that massive spending with average deficits 3-4x bigger than Bush, you would think you could point to something tangible. The Bush deficits took place during:

- A mild recession following the dot.com bubble
- A major terrorist attack and drop in consumer confidence
- The subsequent creation of the Deptarment of Homeland Security
- Unprecedented (at the time) new regulations on public corporations
- Broad and deep tax cuts for all Americans
- A two front war
- Expansion of Medicare to include a new prescription drug benefit
- The bipartisan Bush-Pelosi stimulus package

And I still don't excuse spending an average of $250-375 billion dollars we didn't have.

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
How could we have accomplished this with higher taxes in 2013?

1. Because taxes went up on a very small amount on very few people
2. Because the Democrats thought Republicans would cave on the sequester spending cuts and they didn't.

Republicans are no doubt losing the public relations battle, but they are quietly winning a budget war. In the last two to three years, we've seen the Bush tax rates made permanent. We've seen Republicans put defense spending on the chopping block with only a handful of wimpers. And in re-opening the government, the Democrats lost major leverage in restoring discretionary programs hit by the sequester.

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
Any thoughts on how the recovery is going?

Slowly and steadily. There is a great deal of pent-up consumer demand waiting to be unleashed. People are still deleveraging consumer debt and playing it safe. The business climate ranges from uncertain to hostile with good pockets here and there.

I think we've shown we can avoid complete stagnation like Japan and the past few years in Europe, but it may be ten years before we have another 1982-2007 quarter century run of steady growth and light recessions.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:46 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
My biggest frustration with the Obama deficits is what the heck have we been getting

What are we getting? To me, we still have a functioning banking system. I still have my savings, along with millions more. We can still buy a house, cars, use credit cards. We are recovering, and people are not selling apples on the street corner. Every retired person can breath a little easier. People have money to spend. Not the wild old days, but we have a functioning slowly improving economy.. Now if the jobs came back, which a few are, things would get much better.

[Edited 2013-10-30 18:52:08]
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:54 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 8):
What are we getting? To me, we still have a functioning banking system.

But according to the TARP proponents, we recovered ~97% of the funds used to bail-out and stabilize the banking system. So what have we achieved with the other $6 trillion in debt the Obama administration has amassed?
 
User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:55 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
That's both factually incorrect and misleading.

Really :? How? Considering the fiscal year starts in October, and guess what, October of 2008 Bush signed the budget that allocated the spending based on expected revenue. In October of 2008 the market crashed, but the budget was already set. Far too many people, including yourself forget this fact. The same thing happened in 2012 and will happen in 2016. The 2013 and 2017 budgets will have been set, unless Cruz continues with his Green Eggs and Ham routing.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
- A mild recession following the dot.com bubble
- A major terrorist attack and drop in consumer confidence
- The subsequent creation of the Deptarment of Homeland Security
- Unprecedented (at the time) new regulations on public corporations
- Broad and deep tax cuts for all Americans
- A two front war
- Expansion of Medicare to include a new prescription drug benefit
- The bipartisan Bush-Pelosi stimulus package

And I still don't excuse spending an average of $250-375 billion dollars we didn't have.

All of which occurred during a housing bubble that paid for the these items, and that extra 250-375 could have been taken care of had bush not cut the taxes during the initial "Mild:" Recession. Those cuts left little wiggle room for the subsequent Major recession when the housing bubble crashed.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
1. Because taxes went up on a very small amount on very few people

A very "small" amount of people hold an awful big pile of the money in this country.
Watch the following. Very illustrative for those that do not understand the income and wealth inequity in this country.
3:50 for the inpatient, but the whole video is very illustrative. Pay attentions to the top 1% . They have 40% of ALL THE WEALTH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
2. Because the Democrats thought Republicans would cave on the sequester spending cuts and they didn't.

The cuts needed to happen, and at the end of the day, the democrats won quite a bit more. The Republicans failed to negotiate on the sequester , and it cost a huge pile of the defense spending that the GOP holds dear for political purposes. It portends to issues highlighted recently of the fanatics vs pragmatic portion of the GOP.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
We've seen Republicans put defense spending on the chopping block with only a handful of wimpers. And in re-opening the government, the Democrats lost major leverage in restoring discretionary programs hit by the sequester.

The republicans have arguably lost a lot more. They do not deal in real numbers or science anymore . they deal in faith and superstitions.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
I think we've shown we can avoid complete stagnation like Japan and the past few years in Europe, but it may be ten years before we have another 1982-2007 quarter century run of steady growth and light recessions.

I think things will move faster. Unlike Japan, Wall street is a very American entity, and used the world over. As the US shows growth, and a lack of standoffs in the government. World money will flow in. Japan did not have that advantage.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:14 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
But according to the TARP proponents, we recovered ~97% of the funds used to bail-out and stabilize the banking system. So what have we achieved with the other $6 trillion in debt the Obama administration has amassed?

I am not an expert for sure, but it seems to me that most of this debt was an ongoing attempt to avoid financial collapse, to prop up the staggering economy. I cannot answer for anyone but myself, but I and many millions were holding our breaths for a long time, we did not want to lose all we had worked for overnight. I took a pension check, two of my friends took a buyout. They invested with one of the big funds in this country. Very safe they were told. When the collapse came, they lost 50% of their money just like that. They are almost back after all this time. If they had lost it all, they would have had to go back to work, after 40 years of toil and saving their money. I think it has been worth the money myself. The problem to me is nobody went to jail.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7496
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
And wait to see what happens to it when the "Quantitative Easing" ends. That policy is spending $85 Billion a month to buy (and reissue) outstanding debt. That right there is $1T a year, so the deficit is about to get a lot better.

What the Fed does is not spending, it's printing money. It has nothing to do with the budget, the Fed is not part of the government (in theory). The benefit is that the government can run huge deficits because the Fed buys its bonds no matter what. That's why your reforms are going nowhere, there is no incentive.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:58 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
Actually student loans are one thing I think need to be reigned in. At least somewhat. The low cost of them makes it too easy to borrow and means too many get too far into debt as the price for college education increases due the availability of cheap money.

Motivating state universities to deliver quality education at a reasonable cost is probably the first step. Research funds are excellent motivators when you are looking to push college costs down - and that is the direction we need to go in.

Maybe we need to look at other costs also. Student fees used to fund athletics is a pretty rancid approach. If the NCAA cannot deliver a financially responsible program then maybe we need to take a hard look at both college athletics & the NCAA. There is plenty of TV money available to help clear out those costs without relying on student fees.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
I would agree, but my concern is that people in this country have a problem with spending huge amounts of money that they do not have without understanding the consequences of it.

Responsible home ownership can be an effective long term investment. Our first home was $19,200 and I thought that was a huge amount of money. Now we have a much nicer home in a much nicer neighborhood and it is fully paid for. That is a huge protection for the wife if I fall off the perch before her. She can sell the place, get a condo or smaller house that suits her needs and use the balance of the cash to provide funds when needed.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
According to this, unless it is wrong the poverty level for a household of 1 is 11,400

Where is that? Some small town in Kansas?

And how much government assistance does that require?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
The Government does also need to give a break to those that receive the burden when times are good though.

Lobbyists have ensured that "they" are already taken care of. Money buys a lot of attention from politicians so "they" are well taken care of in the 70,000+ pages of the tax code.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
Engineers, doctors, teachers should all get subsidies.

Engineers should do well when they get a degree - and they really don't need subsidies not available to ll students.

Doctors? I strongly agree when those doctors fill specific needs, like being a GP, or working in areas that are short of doctors - like rural areas, or small towns.

Teachers? You bet I'd support that. Getting that teaching certificate is not cheap and continuing ed is required in many states. Lots of Masters & PhDs in school systems simply because of CE requirements.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
Politicians, Liberal Arts majors get no breaks unless they are acing the courses, and there is a true demand for their degree.

Politicians can come from any field. Our Senator Coburn is a Doctor - a pretty good indication that they can come from any where.

Liberal Art is different and I look to Steve Jobs for guidance there. He pushed Apple to be the "Intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts" and it's pretty hard to argue with the success that approach has delivered.

I also believe that we need to continue delivering Liberal Arts grads as that is where we get English and History teachers, among other things. Political Science is also a good background for those wanting to go into law, or government work.

I even go back to my Navy days where the CO of the destroyer I was serving on was not only an Annapolis grad, but had received a Masters in International Relations from Harvard. That degree was considered important as he would be taking ships he commanded into foreign ports. (The Navy is really big on international relations training for that simple reason.)

Sad to say, but Liberal Arts will (hopefully) continue to be a critical area of a normal university.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:26 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Politicians can come from any field. Our Senator Coburn is a Doctor - a pretty good indication that they can come from any where.

True enough, I should have said Poli sci majors. Too much evaluation of how one should act vs, doing the right thing.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Liberal Art is different and I look to Steve Jobs for guidance there. He pushed Apple to be the "Intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts" and it's pretty hard to argue with the success that approach has delivered.

I see where you are here, but Job's used and recognized talent where it was, and I am not arguing against that. My engineering degree was actually awarded through the liberal arts side of my University. However I took many classes within the engineering school.

But there are many degrees that have diminutive returns. Unfortunately their is a disproportionate attraction of students to degrees with little return for them, and the the US economy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Political Science is also a good background for those wanting to go into law, or government work.

I disagree, Many areas of law and government are as diverse as the economy. The lawyers and Government officials should be just as diverse.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Osubuckeyes
Posts: 1680
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:05 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:17 am

Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
11,400 seems awfully low to me, but as a single person in college I usually got by on less. But loans and family helped. The sad part of it is that a lot of those really in the poverty level are single mom's with kids. That is something that is really hard to address.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Where is that? Some small town in Kansas?

And how much government assistance does that require?

According to the link I posted that is the level at which you would be in poverty for the federal government as a single person household. Keep in mind that a bunch of assistance programs kick in at higher than the poverty level and there are discretions by state on the income level that recieves assistance for program. Many times when you hear pundits and politicians throwing around numbers for income and poverty they usually relate to a household more than 1 or 2 because that is their target audience usually. I lived the past 2 years on 20-25k a year, but was fairly well off because it was just me. I know many people would scoff at 25k and say its pennies, but it is more than enough to support one person if one chooses to live wisely.
 
seb146
Posts: 13793
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:34 am

Better gather a committee. This is Obama's fault, after all. Find a scape goat that Obama appointed and blame him. This is Obama's fault and he should be held accountable for lowering the deficit. The same deficit that includes $24 billion run up by the tea people who shut down the government. It was Obama's fault.

give me strength and another beer.....
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:37 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):
Better gather a committee. This is Obama's fault, after all. Find a scape goat that Obama appointed and blame him. This is Obama's fault and he should be held accountable for lowering the deficit. The same deficit that includes $24 billion run up by the tea people who shut down the government. It was Obama's fault.

While I'm sure there are gonna be a lot of Obama-less reasons for the lowered debt, I'm not going to automatically assume it was all his doing. It's very important to not be a cheerleader or a hater, just a rationalist and see what we did right to reduce debt. Good news, though. Once our economy picks up we'll be golden, hopefully
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:05 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):
While I'm sure there are gonna be a lot of Obama-less reasons for the lowered debt, I'm not going to automatically assume it was all his doing. It's very important to not be a cheerleader or a hater, just a rationalist and see what we did right to reduce debt. Good news, though. Once our economy picks up we'll be golden, hopefully

Well to be honest, there is a point to be made here. Most of our rampant right are quick to lay blame should a Government fart stink up the place. But then no credit when things go right ?   I would think the far right would be in here complaining that it could be so much lower since the tax revenue that closed the gap hindered "growth"
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7496
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:19 pm

680 billion is about the budget of Canada or Spain, apparently.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:59 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 18):
But then no credit when things go right ?

Well I'm trying to ignore the extreme left and extreme right for a minute. I, of course, don't blame everything that goes wrong on the administration, but at the same time, I cannot automatically contribute any kind of growth to them. I'm not trying to be nice and fair, I'm trying to be practical--what worked? Is it just the market picking up? (Then continue paving the way for them!) Is it due to a program the administration did? (Then continue/expand those programs!) Was it due to the sequester? (Then perhaps cut some more!)

I'm not saying it's any of those three, but you get my point. It's natural for both sides to claim victory for growth, or at least dismiss the other side's claim, but again, I don't care who looks better, I want to have a better country
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:27 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20):
I'm not saying it's any of those three, but you get my point. It's natural for both sides to claim victory for growth, or at least dismiss the other side's claim, but again, I don't care who looks better, I want to have a better country

No, I get that point, but as has been pointed out in many other threads, there is a level of blame leveled at Obama that I have never seen before.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:33 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 21):
No, I get that point, but as has been pointed out in many other threads, there is a level of blame leveled at Obama that I have never seen before.

Yeah, well, I just ignore them sometimes   I mean you know I usually give anyone's thoughts the light of day but sometimes even I shake my head at some of the things they blame the President for
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:47 pm

The level of economic literacy here sometimes is shockingly appallingly poor. I'm no expert, but people do realize there's a difference between deficit spending and debt, right?

The deficit spending cited above only refers to this current fiscal year. Now, let's consider that there hasn't been a budget passed since April 2009 and that the government has operated on a series of continuing spending resolutions that, have only added to deficit spending because they operate on planned increases in spending. Sequestration was a hardline reduction in spending--but it isn't cutting where it most needs, which is entitlement spending. Annual deficits are one thing--total debt is another.

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
And wait to see what happens to it when the "Quantitative Easing" ends. That policy is spending $85 Billion a month to buy (and reissue) outstanding debt. That right there is $1T a year, so the deficit is about to get a lot better.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 12):
What the Fed does is not spending, it's printing money. It has nothing to do with the budget, the Fed is not part of the government (in theory). The benefit is that the government can run huge deficits because the Fed buys its bonds no matter what. That's why your reforms are going nowhere, there is no incentive.

In short, we're still borrowing money by the boatloads (hello China) to finance domestic spending levels that are unsustainable. You can't buy back debt with money that is reducing in value and think that's a winning game plan.

Monetary policy is being "gamed" to a ridiculous extreme and there is FAR too much over-reliance on it to solve what are larger economic issues: among them, no jobs, rampant government spending, reduction in manufacturing base, and a skyrocketing increase in number of disabled recipients, welfare recipients, food stamps, other entitlements that are creating a giant sucking action on the economy.

Moreover, because interest rates are ALREADY at record lows and remain so, we're not seeing increased lending taking place, which would naturally stimulate economic growth too. By a wink and a nod (or, with the Obama administration, I'm sure it's far more heavy-handed) to Bernanke, there has been an artificial hand at play to keep interest rates low. That's creating a serious optical problem that masks what are larger economic issues. In essence, it's just kicking the can. Again. And more. Now, it would be naive to think any POTUS doesn't take an active hand in Fed actions, some are just more subtle and some--very rarely--fall on the sword because they know there is a right and wrong action that has major repercussions.

(By contrast, the inflation we saw in the 1970s was also because of pumping money supply in the Nixon administration--that backfired dramatically and it was worsened by Ford and Carter. Finally, Paul Volcker--who ironically was appointed by Carter--was the one who helped get monetary policy in check. Monetary policy dictates inflation more than almost every other key lever. Reagan had to have some brass balls to not continue the same policies as Carter (although one could argue he didn't have a choice given the misery index) but the tight money policy by Reagan, that Volcker boldly continued with, reduced inflation dramatically. Right in the face of the Keynesians, I might add) Go back and look when that Nixon election was--1972, right? Fast forward 8 years. Look at what happened. We're now into what year of Obama? Think of the parallels here as to when the hammer will hit. And it will. It's inescapable. You can only game the system for so long--especially in today's global economy which is FAR more integrated and interdependent than it was 40 years ago.

The ultimate irony--and one that NO ONE really is the MSM even dares to talk about because having an intelligent discussion about economics makes people click off their TVs, turn off radios and not read articles--is that the very policies Obama has undertaken, and accelerated, are most harmful to low income and poor people whose financial resources, already limited, become less valuable in the marketplace. Money devalues, hyperinflation will result. Throw in the fact that unchecked debt--in the form of entitlement spending--has NO multiplier effect to the economy, it's like pouring money we don't have and have to borrow, down a bottomless pit. THEN, consider this: banks would normally borrow against savers to make reinvestment. This isn't happening much either because people are saving less and their money is worth less. So it really does become a race to the bottom. So if we're printing money and NOT getting investment out of it, where is it going? And why isn't the economy recovering? Ask the commercial bankers. And then kill em.

There's no capital investment even with low interest rates that, again, are being kept artificially low. QE and money printing is a trap and we're F'd by continuing to do it. Meanwhile, job creation is abysmal, Obamacare is already impacting the economy, and the oligarchs laugh it all off.

Now, back to your bread and circuses, people. Look, it's Miley Cyrus!
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:01 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 23):
The level of economic literacy here sometimes is shockingly appallingly poor. I'm no expert, but people do realize there's a difference between deficit spending and debt, right?

Yeah, our debt isn't going up quite as fast. We obviously have $680bil to go but it's a step in the right direction. I think there would be a lot more celebration if our debt was $680bil all of the sudden  
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:16 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):
Yeah, our debt isn't going up quite as fast.

I don't know what you're looking at, but it is.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbo...-long-term-debt-warning-2013-09-17

CBO's own warnings show that total debt will eclipse our total GDP within a few decades.

It's presently 75% of national GDP, the highest since WWII and TWICE the percentage it was in 2007.

Every possible warning sign is there and our political system is broken. Irrevocably broken to fix it.
 
seb146
Posts: 13793
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:23 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 23):
it isn't cutting where it most needs, which is entitlement spending.

So there is no place in the military budget to be cut? Only "entitlements"? BTW, we all pay into entitlements. Like Social Security and Medicare. We all pay into those. VA is an entitlement we all do not pay into. I have no access to VA services but I still have my tax dollars go to VA. So, we need to cut VA since it is an entitlement, right?

Quoting Slider (Reply 23):
we're still borrowing money by the boatloads (hello China) to finance domestic spending levels that are unsustainable. You can't buy back debt with money that is reducing in value and think that's a winning game plan.

It was such a good idea under W, why not continue it?

It looks like this is a case of closing the barn door after the horses get out. People love to crow about it before, but, now seeing the effects, it was a disaster. And these same people want to do nothing about it but cut pennies out of the budget instead of where it really matters.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:30 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 23):
policies Obama has undertaken, and accelerated, are most harmful to low income and poor people whose financial resources, already limited, become less valuable in the marketplace

Yet this is a misnomer. the policies that are causing the issue are already in place. Medicare and Social security. This blame it on Obama attitude is the insipid stupidity of the far right, when they will not sit down and agree to revenue increases through taxation of those whose financial resources are not "already limited".

Entitlements need to be curbed, but the Recession is still being recovered from, and you don't start cutting entitlements until you have a solid plan in place for handling them.

Quoting Slider (Reply 25):
CBO's own warnings show that total debt will eclipse our total GDP within a few decades.

But our deficit is getting smaller, which is the direction you have to go, if you want to do anything about debt.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:45 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 10):
Really :? How? Considering the fiscal year starts in October, and guess what, October of 2008 Bush signed the budget that allocated the spending based on expected revenue.Far too many people, including yourself forget this fact.

I did not forget. The Obama administration still has the discretion to not spend appropriations. The Obama administration also signed supplemental appropriations after they took office, which can't be pinned to Bush.

Like I said, it can go both ways. Picking any particular year would be misleading, but a year with both emergency spending and a leadership transition is doubly so.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 10):
All of which occurred during a housing bubble that paid for the these items

You are just blowharding. All sectors of the economy experienced growth in the 2000s, particularly manufacturing, technology, and energy production.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 10):
that extra 250-375 could have been taken care of had bush not cut the taxes during the initial "Mild:" Recession.Those cuts left little wiggle room for the subsequent Major recession when the housing bubble crashed.

Given how passionately you criticize the Bush era deficits of $250-375 billion per year, perhaps you can tell us your opinion of the average $1,090-1,150 billion dollar deficits that Obama has run? Let me guess, necessary and proper given the economy, but every dollar Bush borrowed was reckless and unpatriotic.  
Quoting casinterest (Reply 10):
They have 40% of ALL THE WEALTH

We don't tax wealth.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 10):
The cuts needed to happen, and at the end of the day, the democrats won quite a bit more. The Republicans failed to negotiate on the sequester , and it cost a huge pile of the defense spending that the GOP holds dear for political purposes

*** Please pay attention: I want to make this point especially clear ****

Today's Republican party is willing to cut defense. The Lindsey Graham's of the world hate it, but the new generation of Republicans like Paul and Cruz are increasingly isolationist and don't see the world's problems as our problem (rightly or wrongly).

That is why the Republicans didn't bother negotiating on the sequester. The Republicans got defense cuts they wanted and discretionary spending cuts they wanted. Democrats expected no cuts, because they thought Republicans would cave on defense and give up discretionary spending as a result. This was a profound miscalculation, and it's why Harry Reid spent the shutdown trying desperately to get the sequester cuts restored. Instead, it's now the new normal, and only going to cut more.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 10):
The republicans have arguably lost a lot more. They do not deal in real numbers or science anymore . they deal in faith and superstitions.



Real numbers show the deficit is plummeting. That is what they want and they are getting it faster than Democrats ever wanted.
 
Stabilator
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:42 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:13 pm

Awesome to hear that it is shrinking a little.

What is the next step? How do we get to the point of a surplus?
So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:15 pm

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 29):
What is the next step? How do we get to the point of a surplus?

Keep the Democrats in power.

[Edited 2013-10-31 11:19:13]
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
seb146
Posts: 13793
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:38 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 28):
every dollar Bush borrowed was reckless and unpatriotic.

Considering it was used to fund wars and Medicare D and tax breaks for the rich and corporations, yes.

BTW, how much profit is Medicare part D running?
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:40 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 28):
I did not forget. The Obama administration still has the discretion to not spend appropriations. The Obama administration also signed supplemental appropriations after they took office, which can't be pinned to Bush.

Like I said, it can go both ways. Picking any particular year would be misleading, but a year with both emergency spending and a leadership transition is doubly so.

So you would have preferred the Government stopped spending to help out the economy? That would have left us in a depression.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 28):
You are just blowharding. All sectors of the economy experienced growth in the 2000s, particularly manufacturing, technology, and energy production.

BS. The housing bubble, and the low loans. pushed much of the manufacturing, technology and energy sectors. Otherwise why didn't they carry us through the housing crash?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 28):
We don't tax wealth.

Yes we do , in many ways, but apparently you have never heard of investment taxes, interest taxes, wealth transfer taxes and many other items, including income.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 28):

That is why the Republicans didn't bother negotiating on the sequester. The Republicans got defense cuts they wanted and discretionary spending cuts they wanted. Democrats expected no cuts, because they thought Republicans would cave on defense and give up discretionary spending as a result. This was a profound miscalculation, and it's why Harry Reid spent the shutdown trying desperately to get the sequester cuts restored. Instead, it's now the new normal, and only going to cut more.

Let me make this part clear/

The NEW Republican Party will not be in power because they do not negotiate and do not see value in Government and about 65-70% of the population. The Dems will then be able to recklessly do whatever they want.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 28):

No, the democrats want sustainable growth and government services. the Cruz's of the world don't care. they would rather slash and burn.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:52 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 25):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):
Yeah, our debt isn't going up quite as fast.

I don't know what you're looking at, but it is.

Um, if our deficit is higher, our debt is going to go up faster than if our deficit is lower...

Our deficit is lower than what it was so it's not going up quite as fast. I realize it's still going up and it's going up faster than it should.

Not sure where you're going with this, you say you disagree with me then you go on to say stuff I agree with  
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
Flighty
Posts: 7651
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:56 am

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 29):
What is the next step? How do we get to the point of a surplus?

Institute modern management practices in government and health care. Fire most people in the govt and hire investigators to eliminate SSDI fraud. Convert most government buildings to residences for the poor or to wilderness areas.

Then we'd be back to a still huge, but very sustainable govt. Savaging the next generations of kids financially isn't honorable, and achieves nothing in the end.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7496
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:02 pm

Yeah going the private route has proven so cheap with the military !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:27 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 35):
Yeah going the private route has proven so cheap with the military !

It has in many cases. Blanket statements aren't usually 100% true. You're probably talking about mercenaries though, right?
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:15 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36):
It has in many cases. Blanket statements aren't usually 100% true. You're probably talking about mercenaries though, right?

to be honest their are a lot of things the private sector charges the military an arm and a leg for. Just look at the defense budget, and those union workers in the ship yards and airplane factories. Outsourcing does not make the Government cheaper, it generally makes things more expensive. Kind of like mowing the lawn and doing oil changes cost more when someone else does it. However their are certain benefits to outsourcing , especially if what you are getting done , is done much better and more efficiently on the outside.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 35):
Yeah going the private route has proven so cheap with the military !

The military's prime role is not to be cheap. It is to provide effective defense for it's nation's interests. They are not in the business of building guns, boats, ships, or clothing. They are in the business of using them effectively.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:29 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 37):
to be honest their are a lot of things the private sector charges the military an arm and a leg for.

I agree, never said otherwise

Quoting casinterest (Reply 37):
Outsourcing does not make the Government cheaper

Yes, it does in many cases. Go to an airfield, you'll see many non-military workers (and I'm excluding government workers because I don't think you're talking about government workers.) Without these contractors, we'd have to recruit a ton of people, send them through basic training/boot camp, give them all the perks of being in the military, and just spend money on all the oddities the military spends money on. It's an incredible waste of money especially for a fueling company (for example.) Does the fuel truck driver need to go to basic/boot camp? Do we need to purchase a ton of uniforms and have them on the same payscales as the military which add up really quickly through promotions?

Again, I think you and Aesma are talking about the more egregious cases. I completely am with you, there are some very bad cases and instances of waste. But making blanket statements about privatization always increasing costs is very wrong
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
casinterest
Topic Author
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:45 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
But making blanket statements about privatization always increasing costs is very wrong

It's not wrong when you are talking about items the government is intended to do. Bootcamp and other items are considered training . Just as a Private company does. The Private company has their overhead to cover, and then on both sides you wind up with Liaisons( Project Managers , marketing ,and Sales folks ) that add overhead. Don't get me wrong, the US government should not be putting BX workers through basic, but it is not cheaper to outsource. It is just more efficient .
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:49 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 39):

Not fully understanding. Why wouldn't the military outsource? It can be cheaper and more efficient. Getting a fuel operation up and running might be more expensive and less efficient than just outsourcing (maybe fuel ops could be pulled off, but you get where I'm going.)
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
Flighty
Posts: 7651
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:03 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 23):
So if we're printing money and NOT getting investment out of it, where is it going? And why isn't the economy recovering? Ask the commercial bankers. And then kill em.

Why would anyone save money, if their retirement and healthcare costs will be paid by the govt? Saving or investing would be senseless for them.

As you say, government policies play a role in it.
 
seb146
Posts: 13793
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:00 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
Does the fuel truck driver need to go to basic/boot camp? Do we need to purchase a ton of uniforms and have them on the same payscales as the military which add up really quickly through promotions?

But recall that, for the Iraq war, they had no-bid contracts. And, Cheney told us that "deficits don't matter". Those no-bid contracts ended up costing much more than anyone thought. But, no one on the right cared.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:05 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 42):
But recall that, for the Iraq war, they had no-bid contracts.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about though. I acknowledged in all of my last few posts that abuse does indeed happen, BUT, just like government workers (that the right seems to not like as much) contracting out isn't always a big waste of money and can save money
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
seb146
Posts: 13793
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:14 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 43):
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about though. I acknowledged in all of my last few posts that abuse does indeed happen, BUT, just like government workers (that the right seems to not like as much) contracting out isn't always a big waste of money and can save money

Two things:

1. This was never an issue until Obama won the White House.

2. As you acknowledge, there are a million shades of grey.

I believe Boeing has contracts with the United States military. They have for years, especially after they acquired Lockheed. My personal issue is: I am sick and tired of faux outrage over things that were not a problem under the previous administration and, actually, the best thing ever back then.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:29 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 44):
I am sick and tired of faux outrage over things that were not a problem under the previous administration and, actually, the best thing ever back then.

Well I'll try to make this the last time I say this because I've said it to you a bunch in the last couple days... I don't know why you keep thinking that everyone is just ignoring things they have a problem with and all of the sudden are raising hell about them now. There are so many things wrong with it, I don't even know where to begin.

Why did they wait a whole 4 years before pinning these things on Obama?

Why do you think the public knows about every bad thing the instant it starts happening and refuse to acknowledge that things get discovered years after the fact?

Why would we be blaming Bush for things? He's long gone. Who cares if he did this or that, how does that alleviate any blame from what's happening today?

I'm not even buying the fact that people are making big deals about things now... I've heard complaints on military waste, contractors, etc etc etc for years now, even before Obama was elected. Lots of people were mad at GWB

I don't know why you even listen to the trolls that are making a big deal about some of these things... you're often confusing the public with the loudmouth extremists. Yes, I know they yell the loudest, just ignore them like the vast majority of us. Even a majority on the right aren't making a big deal about some of these things

People that are mad at action X aren't necessarily mad at the administration, they just want answers, and if they are mad at the administration, it's not because "oh no we hate Obama!!!11"

I'll just end it there. 90% of us aren't digging up old problems just to trash the President. A lot of these problems just haven't surfaced until now. No one really cares if these "programs were under Bush too..." let's fix the problem. These problems would be coming out under a President Romney too. We can point out a problem without calling for impeachment or even blaming the President--we just want the problem to be fixed. Take off the tin foil hats, man, and ignore the vocal extremists, it's a LOT more calm and normal in the center
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
seb146
Posts: 13793
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:15 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 45):
Why did they wait a whole 4 years before pinning these things on Obama?

Separation anxiety.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 45):
Why would we be blaming Bush for things? He's long gone. Who cares if he did this or that, how does that alleviate any blame from what's happening today?

He set things in motion. The biggest expansion of government is Obama's fault because Bush started it. No one on the right cared or batted an eye when Bush did it. That is the point I am trying to make. The exact same thing happened under Bush and the exact same people didn't care then who are caring now. Why did they think it was not an issue then and think it is an issue now?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 45):
90% of us aren't digging up old problems just to trash the President. A lot of these problems just haven't surfaced until now. No one really cares if these "programs were under Bush too..." let's fix the problem

Those problems should have been fixed under Bush. But, when those problems were brought up, people were called "liberals who hate America" and so forth. Now, those exact same people are called "liberals who hate America" for not speaking up against Obama. Which is it? I get whiplash from the subject change so quickly! We are supposed to love the government one minute but hate it the next?

Hate Bush=liberal who hates America
Support Obama=liberal who hates America

No matter the subject. Don't like the whole spying "crisis"? Blame a "liberal". Don't like the Benghazi "crisis"? blame a "liberal". Don't like the debt ceiling? Blame a "liberal". That's all they got. Simply blame a "liberal" and their job is done!

I loved my country more when we could all have an opinion without being called a "liberal who hates America" when we didn't agree with the media.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:28 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 46):

Yadaya, do what you think is right no matter what names people call you. Do what is right even if you have to disagree with a candidate you like and support. Do what is right even if it should have been taken care of earlier... it wasn't but we can still work on it now. Don't get bent out of shape because people on the other side can be hypocrites sometimes. You do it too... we all do, no matter how hard we try and combat bias.

If something is brought up to my attention, I'm not gonna ignore it because it should have been brought up earlier or because it'll go against a politician I like. I do what I think is best for my country and not necessarily me (ie, cut defense.) Fight for what you think is right now for some illusion of fairness or whatever. Maybe it's unfair the President is dealing with something the other party ignored for years. Oh well, that's his job, he'll live, we'll persevere.

Hope what I'm saying makes sense
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
seb146
Posts: 13793
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:01 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
do what you think is right no matter what names people call you.

And I do. And I am sick of it.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
Don't get bent out of shape because people on the other side can be hypocrites sometimes. You do it too... we all do, no matter how hard we try and combat bias.

And you and I do.

Problem is: when we give our opinion, we are told we hate America. When we give our opinion, we are told how badly we are against America. We need to shut down those who really do hate America. We need to shut down those on the far, extreme right who believe the only opinion is the extreme far right opinion. These same people love to go on and on about "freedom of speech" but, when it actually happens, they scream "You are violating my rights!" and "you hate America!"

I can't wait for the "war on Christmas" people. They want nothing to do with freedom of speech. They say they do, but they only want America to be a "Christian" nation. Jefferson? Not so much.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:14 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 48):
Problem is: when we give our opinion, we are told we hate America. When we give our opinion, we are told how badly we are against America.

Well if you're left leaning, you'll be called names by the right. If you're right leaning, you'll be called names by the left. And if you settle in the middle, you get the love and attention of both sides (not)  
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests