How exactly can figures for 2010 onward possibly be actual numbers?Why would we need to "spin" it at all? We'll just use CBOs' actual numbers:
Congressional Budget Office - Budget Projections
Click on the "Supplemental Data" link and an .xls chart will come up.
2010-2019 Baracks Deficit: 4.4 Trillion
2010-2019 CBO Deficit: 9.2 Trillion
Let's see the Liberals "spin" that one positively.
Sidebar: If you can't download .xls files because you don't have MS Office. Here's a great alternative that I've been using for years, Open Office. The price is right too, Free!:
OpenOffice.org - The Free and Open Productivity Suite
Barrack Obama to reduce size of government
- Thread starter DavidS
- Start date
Yurt
Gold Member
obama to reduce size of government....loooool
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid add up to $53 Trillion in Unfunded obligations over the next 30 years as the Baby Boom generation retires. All three of those were put in place by liberals,and these programs are going to bankrupt the US. We may not recover from it.
Meanwhile Obama is promising more stuff we cannot afford.. Universal Healthcare down payment 678 Billion. This is what liberals do, promise things to buy votes, dumb people think they are getting something for free, so they vote for liberals. But the debt is coming due in the next 30 years.
Meanwhile Obama is promising more stuff we cannot afford.. Universal Healthcare down payment 678 Billion. This is what liberals do, promise things to buy votes, dumb people think they are getting something for free, so they vote for liberals. But the debt is coming due in the next 30 years.
Ok. I haven't taken the time to read the entire thread yet so if I duplicate someone else's post I apologize in advance but PUHLEEZE.. does anyone actually believe that the guy that just signed a bill containing 9000 earmarks ( read that as pork projects ) has any intention of cutting spending? He should have closed the barn door while the horse was still inside. Instead of spending money on studying animal waste odor they might want to study the stench of hypocrisy.
Social Security, Medicare and Medcaid add up to $53 Trillion dollars of UNFUNDED Obligations in the next 30 years as the baby boomers retire. There are 138 million taxpayers in the US. That amounts to $384,000 per taxpayer. That is all in today's dollars BTW...We are already running deficits and we haven't even started retiring BAby Boomers yet.
As they retire, the taxes they pay into the system will plummet, and their costs will skyrocket.
All three programs were put in place by Liberals, and Barak Obama is promising Universal Healthcare, (2009 down payment 678 Billion). So more voters who think they are getting something for free or cheap will vote for liberals who buy their votes with benefits. Who cares if future generations have to pay for it? That's the Liberal position in my view.
The whole thing is a ponzy scheme and the bill is coming due my friends
The bad news is that we are borrowing from China and Saudi Arabia to pay for these things. World wide borrowers are beginning to doubt that the US can really carry all of this debt. So we had to buy our own debt, because we could not sell it all.
So as a nation we are printing IOUs in one place, printing money in another, and buying our own IOUs (US treasury bonds) with our own printed money.
If this does tell you that we have reached the end of the debt road, I don't know what will...
Liberals never reply to these posts because they don't care about the debt, they just want the goodies that they want. They are the political equivalent of a 2 year old. They'll just keep screaming until Dad sticks something in their mouth. Only this time Dad is running out of money..
As they retire, the taxes they pay into the system will plummet, and their costs will skyrocket.
All three programs were put in place by Liberals, and Barak Obama is promising Universal Healthcare, (2009 down payment 678 Billion). So more voters who think they are getting something for free or cheap will vote for liberals who buy their votes with benefits. Who cares if future generations have to pay for it? That's the Liberal position in my view.
The whole thing is a ponzy scheme and the bill is coming due my friends
The bad news is that we are borrowing from China and Saudi Arabia to pay for these things. World wide borrowers are beginning to doubt that the US can really carry all of this debt. So we had to buy our own debt, because we could not sell it all.
So as a nation we are printing IOUs in one place, printing money in another, and buying our own IOUs (US treasury bonds) with our own printed money.
If this does tell you that we have reached the end of the debt road, I don't know what will...
Liberals never reply to these posts because they don't care about the debt, they just want the goodies that they want. They are the political equivalent of a 2 year old. They'll just keep screaming until Dad sticks something in their mouth. Only this time Dad is running out of money..
Last edited:
$3T dollar deficit = not a reduction of government size.
No, it is avoiding a potential depression Obama inhereted.
Source for your data?
Bullshit ... he fought for it and won.
theunbubba
Member
- Feb 28, 2009
- 560
- 55
- 16
Unfortunately by that time most liberals will be dead from their overindulgent lifestyles of sex, drugs, and rock and roll.
They will not be present for the hangover. The demographic shift over the next four to eight years will favor the religious and the conservative.
Obama is their last hurrah. Just like the Stalinists died out and a new generation took over.
Just like the Maoists are dying out and a new day dawns in China.
The Rooseveltians / Kennedyites will die out here.
Obama will turn out to be their Gorbachev.
And I think Sarah Palin will be our Yeltsin.
Last edited:
Mad Scientist
Feels Good!
- Sep 15, 2008
- 24,196
- 5,436
- 270
I find it strange that you wouldn't understand the meaning of "actual", but you asked, so here goes:How exactly can figures for 2010 onward possibly be actual numbers?Why would we need to "spin" it at all? We'll just use CBOs' actual numbers:
Congressional Budget Office - Budget Projections
Click on the "Supplemental Data" link and an .xls chart will come up.
2010-2019 Baracks Deficit: 4.4 Trillion
2010-2019 CBO Deficit: 9.2 Trillion
Let's see the Liberals "spin" that one positively.
Sidebar: If you can't download .xls files because you don't have MS Office. Here's a great alternative that I've been using for years, Open Office. The price is right too, Free!:
OpenOffice.org - The Free and Open Productivity Suite
DavidS' said Conservatives would spin the numbers but I countered that we need not "spin" anything, actual numbers from the CBO website, which I cited, will do just fine.
Obama says one number, the CBO says another. The numbers that they have on their website are considered "actual", not based on fantasy. The CBO by the way is neither Fox News nor Rachell Maddow so it's pretty reliable.
Here's a definition of "actual" in case you still don't understand:
actual - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
If you're still struggling, just print this post out and have someone read it to you aloud.
Last edited:
How about the spending done by Eisenhower? Oh, yeah that spending was on infrastructure!
There is a huge difference between spending on military private contracts, entitlements and tax cuts for the top 5% like Bush and investing in infrastructure, education and tax relief for the bottom 95% like Obama.
-Joe
$3T dollar deficit = not a reduction of government size.
No, it is avoiding a potential depression Obama inhereted.
Source for your data?
It is creating a depression from a mild recession that Obama inherited, that was, itself created by excessive spending and debt. You can't borrow yourself out of bankruptcy.
CBO and Casey Research | Visitor Home Page
It is a spun chart. Look at the bottom axis... it says DEFICIT, not SPENDING.
Even if spending were cut to -0-, the deficit remains, accumulating interest, until it is paid off.
-Joe
neurosport
Rookie
- Banned
- #52
I disagree David. If not the politicians, then the regulators they hired are responsible for allowing the mess to get as big as it did.
History has proven time and time again that rules and a police force with authority and teeth are required to keep a society that is using the tools of capitalism and freedom from degrading into rule by the powerful at least and Somalia style anarchy at most.
-Joe
Last edited:
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
There is a big difference in building new infrastructure where none had existed before and merely repaving existing roads and repairing existing bridges.
The new, never existed before, infrastructure did provide a great increase in commerce that merely repairing the existing infrastructure will not.
And tell me why you have so much faith in government taxing and spending on all this so called "new" infrastructure that isn't really new but is merely maintenance of the old stuff, when all the taxes we have been paying all along that were supposed to be for upkeep of our roads and bridges was obviously wasted because now all our roads and bridges are in disrepair?
Not to mention... infrastructure is a purview of the State, not the Federal government. It's absolutely illegal for the Federal government to get involved.
It doesn't matter what the government spends our money on, it's damaging to the economy. They are sucking money that we could have.
sarahgop
Gold Member
- Feb 18, 2009
- 3,894
- 1,358
- 200
obama isnt going to cut anything. the money will just be shuffled around. the dept of education should be eliminated. can anyone name anything dept of education employees do all day other than shuffle paper around? what improvements in education have they produced?
elvis
Rookie
- Sep 15, 2008
- 25,881
- 4,473
- 0
- Banned
- #57
conservatives and moderates elected Bush. If only conservs had voted for him, he would have lost. Obama TRIPLING Bush's deficit does not make him a better president. I also like how you make judgements about an entire group of people based on how they voted.
Every other developed nation on Earth can afford to provide basic health care for its citizens.
But the richest country in the world can't. America, the country of can't.
That's the loser kind of talk you hear a lot from the right these days.
LOL - it was the "moderates" fault!
"Every other developed nation on Earth can afford to provide basic health care for its citizens."
MAny others indeed do, but they are going broke, European socialists are right now struggling with an aging population and out of control healthcare costs. Their model is not one to follow. People are dying waiting for care. They come to America and elsewhere for care.
"But the richest country in the world can't. America, the country of can't. "
America is not the richest country in the world. We are currently 10.6 Trillion dollars in debt because people think for some reason that if the government does something it is for free. No it is not free, the politician simply promises liberals all kinds of things, then goes and prints US savings bonds (debt) and sells it on the world market. But the world is beginning to shy away from US debt. China is now selling US savings bonds, and the US government had to buy its own savings bonds with its' own printed money.
"That's the loser kind of talk you hear a lot from the right these days.[/QUOTE]"
I understand the moral / social justice argument, that in principle all people should be taken care of. The question is not whether or not it is good to house, feed, clothe and provide all kinds of help to people. The question is how to do it in a financially sustainable way, without using the power of the government to force people to do things that they would not normally do.
Liberals believe if we pass laws that take from the rich and give to the poor, we will have a more compassionate society. But the definition of compassion is not what you can force your neighbor to do, it is what you are freely willing to do yourself. Do not call yourself compassionate because you are willing to threaten your neighbor with jail if he does not pay taxes that support your ideas. That is not compassion, it is tyranny.
WHen you force people to give, you destroy the proper relationship between givers and receivers. IF a man is forced to give, he is indignant, and will refuse to give any more than what the government mandates. The receiver feels entitled, not grateful, because he is responding to the class envy rhetoric of the left. He hates the giver because he is envious. So we have indignance and hate, not a compassionate society.
The proper approach to a more compassionate society is to inspire people to greater freely given good, not to put a gun to their head and say give me your money.
MAny others indeed do, but they are going broke, European socialists are right now struggling with an aging population and out of control healthcare costs. Their model is not one to follow. People are dying waiting for care. They come to America and elsewhere for care.
"But the richest country in the world can't. America, the country of can't. "
America is not the richest country in the world. We are currently 10.6 Trillion dollars in debt because people think for some reason that if the government does something it is for free. No it is not free, the politician simply promises liberals all kinds of things, then goes and prints US savings bonds (debt) and sells it on the world market. But the world is beginning to shy away from US debt. China is now selling US savings bonds, and the US government had to buy its own savings bonds with its' own printed money.
"That's the loser kind of talk you hear a lot from the right these days.[/QUOTE]"
I understand the moral / social justice argument, that in principle all people should be taken care of. The question is not whether or not it is good to house, feed, clothe and provide all kinds of help to people. The question is how to do it in a financially sustainable way, without using the power of the government to force people to do things that they would not normally do.
Liberals believe if we pass laws that take from the rich and give to the poor, we will have a more compassionate society. But the definition of compassion is not what you can force your neighbor to do, it is what you are freely willing to do yourself. Do not call yourself compassionate because you are willing to threaten your neighbor with jail if he does not pay taxes that support your ideas. That is not compassion, it is tyranny.
WHen you force people to give, you destroy the proper relationship between givers and receivers. IF a man is forced to give, he is indignant, and will refuse to give any more than what the government mandates. The receiver feels entitled, not grateful, because he is responding to the class envy rhetoric of the left. He hates the giver because he is envious. So we have indignance and hate, not a compassionate society.
The proper approach to a more compassionate society is to inspire people to greater freely given good, not to put a gun to their head and say give me your money.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Cuba Knows What Time It Is!!!🇺🇸🇨🇺🥳🥳🥳- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
NYC burning $81K per homeless person — with nothing to show for it
- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 1
