Discussion in 'Politics' started by The Rabbi, Feb 1, 2010.
From Heritage.org. So it is obviously untrue and biased, right?
more at the source.
Why do you bother to post opinion pieces from the Heritage foundation?
Why not just get information yourself, and then make up your own post?
But hey, let's discuss this BS opinion piece, and show everyone why we should not blindly accept opinion as fact, shall we?
1) The author does not mention that the stimulus money is a one time expenditure meant to stimulate the GDP and thus produce more tax revenues, thus lowering the deficit. Which is EXACTLY what happened this year, when the total deficit turned out to be much lower than expected.
2) The author claims Mr Obama's spending cuts are too small, a point that Mr Obama agrees with. He made these cuts to get the obvious cuts out of the way, so EVERYONE can make more politically sensitive cuts together.
This way, when the government is forced to make cuts in the Military, Social Security and Medicare, the Republicans won't be able to say no, claiming that cuts can be made in other places, and blaming the Democrats for cuts to favored programs. Because cuts were ALREADY made in other places.
3) The author doesn't mention the fact that Bush left Obama with a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit to begin with, as estimated by the CBO on January 7th of 2009, and that any increases are either due to stimulus spending or increases in numbers of elderly people claiming benefits.
But hey, what would one expect from the Heritage foundation?
Maybe they can ask,"What would Reagan do?"
Except that isn't what happened. It is not a one time expenditure. Since the money is all borrowed it is the gift that keeps on giving. And since Obama has refused to phase it out, he insists on re-lending repaid stimulus money for "jobs" programs.
Only to a liberal can large deficits coming in less than expected be considered "lowering the deficit." I think I'll estimate my income next year at $5 so if I make $10k for the year I'll consider it a banner year.
If a deficit is expected to be 1.5 Trillion Dollars, and then the people in charge create a stimulus plan to increase tax revenues, and the deficit decreases to 1.3 Trillion Dollars, then that is, by definition, "Lowering the Deficit".
If a non-liberal like yourself doesn't understand that concept, well, I don't know what to tell you.
You're right. You don't know what to tell me.
When the actual deficit rises, and is expected to rise even further, that is not "Lowering the deficit." That is raising the deficit. If you can't tell the difference between something going up and something going down then there is no hope and you ought to consider suicide.
Its only money, Barry will print more.
Separate names with a comma.