Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 142

Thread: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

  1. #101
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,477
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    If nothing is done, Social Security will be fully solvent through 2042. That means worst case scenario, the program will have been fully solvent for around 110 years since its start.

    Please provide an example of any large trust in the private sector, in the history of civilization, anywhere on earth, that has been solvent and successful for that long.
    "If..."
    Nevermind is government is not supposed to be involved in this type of social engineering in the first place.

    It's how libs work. It shouldn't be there, they forecast these crazy scenarios that go way over budget due to the typical government inefficiencies, they hit unforseen troubles and costs explode. But now that it's in we need to pour more money into it instead of phasing it out.

    Let's make the above moot.

    "If..." is hoping for government to do the right thing in a timely manner? LOL.

    Bush tried.
    No dice.

    What did the impeached perjurer, Bill Clinton have to say when president?

    "[I]f you donít do anything [with Social Security], one of two thingswill happen. Either it will go broke and you wonít ever get it, or ifwe wait too long to fix it, the burden on society Ö of taking care ofour generationís Social Security obligations will lower your income andlower your ability to take care of your children to a degree that mostof us who are parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to youand unfair to the future prospects of the United States."

    - President Bill Clinton, February 9, 1998

    FSO Editorials: "Will Social Security Bankrupt America?" by Ronald R. Cooke 02.15.2005
    Social Security payments started in 1940 with 1 beneficiary per 600 workers. By 2033 it looks as though there will be 1 beneficiary for every 2 workers. Our Social Security "surplus" is projected to begin its inevitable downward trend in 2009. By 2018 Social Security will be running an operating deficit that will increase with each passing year. There won't be enough worker income to pay for the beneficiary outgo.


    How did we get into this financial mess?

    There are three basic reasons.

    Problem One: Demographics.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  2. #102
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    CIA fact book? Give me a break. Try looking at the IMF or OECD. According to the OECD, the US government liabilities in % of nominel GDP of 62.9% in 2007 projected to rise to near 80% this year. While some countries had more in Europe and especially Japan, quite a few had far less..including the UK, Spain, all Scandinavia countries and a considerable number of the rest of Europe.

    If you look at the IMF version you get nearly the same picture for the limited number of countries they do look at.

    The only source that remotely backs your claim up is the CIA fact book...

    As for you broadband BS. Again the statistics work against you. Again look at the OECD Broadband portal. American's might use the internet more than Europeans, but that does not mean that your connections are better.. in fact they are worse than quite a few European countries and far more expensive.

    Some basic statistics. Countries ahead of the US on broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, Korea, Finland, Luxenbourg, Canada, UK, Belgium, France, Germany... yes 14 nations are ahead of the US. Even with broadband access, the US lags behind countries like Denmark, Finland, UK, Canada, Norway, Sweden and some asian countries. And Germany, France and Spain are not far behind the US.

    In every broadband statistic the US is no where near the top.
    Its amazing to think how far we are behind Japan and South Korea for example. Those fiber people. Even China is rushing past the US and Europe, with wireless!!!!
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    [QUOTE=Family Guy;1057937186]As if tax cuts weren't a main contributor to the mess that the Republicans created the last 8 years.

    For a party that preaches individual responsibility why do the Republicans in this community refuse to accept that their party, their tax cuts, their policies were the main contributor to our problems. Yes, Democrats are partially responsible too but let's be truthful shall we? [quOTE]

    There is not one scintilla of evidence to support your nonsensical assertion that Republican tax cuts and policies caused the mortgage crisis and corresponding financial bubble.

    It is ironic to see you ask for truth with such flase comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Family Guy View Post
    President Bush and the GOP controlled the Congress and the White House from 2001 until January 2007 and when the Democrats took control of Congress they blocked almost all legislative action passed bythe Democrats or Bush vetoed their major initiatives.

    Bush set an all-time record by going 5 years without vetoing any bills and then when the Democrats got control of Congress he vetoed 12 bills. From zero to 12...interesting!
    There's a point here?


    Quote Originally Posted by Family Guy View Post
    Bush's total amount of vetoes (12) were the least since Warren Harding in the early 20th century. Harding died in office after only two years. The President who had the least after Bush was JFK who vetoed 21 bills...but he too died in office after 3 years!
    What is your point? Want to venture a guess how many bills Obama will veto from a Democrat Congress? Want to venture a guess how many he would veto if the Republicans win it back?

    What a pointless argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Family Guy View Post
    I'd much rather see our President do something than do nothing like Bush did except cut taxes.
    Fascinating commentary and ironic in the extreme when one considers the cacophony from Democrats about the bills that Bush passed like "No Child Left Behind" and the "Medicare Drug Reform Act" along with many other pieces of legislation that truly could be said to have been "bi-partisan."

    You can't even be honest about your own criticisms. Let's be honest here, this President meets your approval for the simple reason he is Liberal and passing Socialist legislation that fills the emotional void in your brain.

    Isn't it amusing to see Democrats only cared about deficit spending when Bush was in charge desperately argue that it makes perfect sense now. Democrat claims of fiscal responsibility were merely a campaign slogan to get them elected; then true to their character, most of the promises made went out the window once they achieved the goal that meant more to them than the wellbeing of the nation or winning wars, political power.

    I look forward to you counting up the pile of debt and deficit spending Obama will/has passed and how many bills he vetoes from a Democrat congress that has proved that the ONLY policy it comprehends is spending mountains of taxpayer money on pet projects to promote ever greater Government control over our lives.

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I would rather see steady growth of half a percent to one percent per year with no cycles of boom and bust, which are caused by government intervention in the markets.
    I don't think it is realistic to believe that there will never be any cycles. It's the nature of the beast. However, those cycles can be moderated if the Government stopped interfering in a desperate attempt to "moderate" it which actually only "exacerbates" it.

    GDP growth does not affect cycles, Government intervention does. Slower growth will not mean smaller or zero cycles and is not realistic or necessary.

    Cycles are nothing new unless you are Barrack Obama or a Liberal whose history goes back as far as yesterday.

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    However, we are talking about nearly the last 80 years, over that large of a time frame, the economy has fairer significantly better under Democratic Administrations than under Republican Administrations.
    There are no facts to support such an assertion. This is almost as fantastical as me claiming that wars are started by Democrat administrations.

    One only need think about how bad things were under the Carter Administration, the Johnson Administration etc. etc. to be reminded how silly your comment is.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    There is a long term correlation here, its a strong one, and it cant easily be dismissed because of that.
    Let's see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Its not that I think that many Republican ideas about the economy are wrong, its just that for whatever reason, they are much more apt to take them to the extreme and thus cast aside all pragmatism when in power than Democrats seem to.
    This comment made in a thread talking about how Democrats have passed trillions in deficit spending without any funding alternatives reeks of irony; particularly when they just passed an $825 billion dollar package with NO funding.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    In fact, I think we would be worse off economically over the long term if people like Kucinich on the extreme left got there way in terms of economic policy than guys like Kudlow on the far right. However, guys like Kucinich never get their way in terms of economic policy when Democrats are in power, while guys like Kudlow almost always get their way more or less when Republicans are in power.
    Two things, Obama is just like Kucinich and the Democrats when in power screw things up usually and it takes a Republican Administration to get us out of the mess they created.

    Johnson's legacy isn't even talked about because it is such an embarrassment to Democrats and it took Nixon to finally get us out of Vietnam. Carter's administration was a complete failure and it took Reagan to clean that mess up.

    I can't fathom how ANYONE with a modicum of historic facts can come up with the scenarios you are attempting to portray, but they are more fantasy than they are real.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Its that lack of pragmatism on the right more than anything else that leads to poor economic performance over the long term.
    ....on the part of Democrat lawmakers who pass laws like the CRA and SS and Medicare and Welfare and housing Projects that have shown to be failures in public policy and gross wastes of the public money and trust time and time again.

    One thing you can almost bet your childís future on, after the current stooges running the Congress and White House are done, the American people will be begging for pragmatism and Republicans to put our house back in order.

    Democrats held the purse strings for 50 years and never ever balanced a budget. Republicans held the purse strings for 12 short years and have been the only congress in recent history that had balanced a budget. That balance would still be in place today if we had not been attacked on 9-11 for no reason by terrorists ignored by the previous administration and had a devastating disaster called Hurricane Katrina.

    Thos are the FACTS for you.

    Carry on.
    Last edited by Truth Detector; 02-24-09 at 05:51 PM.

  6. #106
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,415

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    "If..."
    Nevermind is government is not supposed to be involved in this type of social engineering in the first place.
    Now your trying to change the argument. You stated that Social Security was a big failure. Your based this on its future shortfalls.

    I then responded by pointing out that even with the absolute worst case estimates, Social Security will have been a successful and solvent program for at least 110 years, and that would make it by far more successful than any other large trust in the history of civilization - Public Sector or Private Sector.

    Not willing to concede that, your now responding with your opinion that the program should have never existed in the first place. Thats a valid opinion for you to hold. Its simply your opinion as to what the role of government should be. Its all well and good, but it has nothing to do with whether the program was successful or not.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  7. #107
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,415

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    There are no facts to support such an assertion. This is almost as fantastical as me claiming that wars are started by Democrat administrations.

    One only need think about how bad things were under the Carter Administration, the Johnson Administration etc. etc. to be reminded how silly your comment is.
    Absurd. Absolutely, positively absurd. You are obviously arguing from ignorance. Annualized GDP growth under LBJ was 5.43% Thats nearly 2 percentage points higher than it was under Reagan.

    Do you trust Forbes?

    Presidents And Prosperity: The Underlying Data - Forbes.com

    The numbers simply don't lie. The worst years for Democrats were under Carter and even the Carter years outperformed both Bush Presidencies and the Nixon years economically.

    In terms of economic performance, the best Republicans have been able to do is Reagan, and Reagan ranks behind Bill Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy on economic performance during his administration.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    [
    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    Yet Republicans will never get over the fact that it was a Democratic administration which engineered the most successful retirement program in history.
    I can see that math is definitely not your forte'. To suggest that this joke of a ponzi scheme is the most successful retirement program in history requires a level of willful ignorance most people with even a modicum of intelligence can't possibly achieve.

    A program that confiscates 15% of your income for your entire income earning life pays back the equivalent of $15,508 per year IF you delay retirement to the age of 70. But wait, they will deduct Medicare part B benefits so now your annual take is only $14,352.

    Yep, don't spend it all in one place!

    If you had invested the same amount into a conservative growth fund for that period, the likely income produced from that fund even with todayís drop in the market would probably be about $100,000 per year.

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Absurd. Absolutely, positively absurd. You are obviously arguing from ignorance. Annualized GDP growth under LBJ was 5.43% Thats nearly 2 percentage points higher than it was under Reagan.

    Do you trust Forbes?

    Presidents And Prosperity: The Underlying Data - Forbes.com

    The numbers simply don't lie. The worst years for Democrats were under Carter and even the Carter years outperformed both Bush Presidencies and the Nixon years economically.

    In terms of economic performance, the best Republicans have been able to do is Reagan, and Reagan ranks behind Bill Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy on economic performance during his administration.
    This is what happens when you give data to people who do not comprehend how to read the data in a historical context. The Carter Years, had you lived through them, were some of the worst years in memory. High unemployment numbers, high interest rates and the taking of our embassy in Iran were the highlights of the Carter Administration.

    Johnson's was one of fighting the war in Vietnam from the White House costing the lives of tens of thousands of young men and women.

    Johnson ranked #1 in GDP growth; but we must also understand that the reason for it was the War in Vietnam; a war that was started under JFK and accelerated by Johnson under false pretenses.

    Raw data is ignorant of the actions of Administrations predecessors, the actions of Congress and who is in power in Congress at the time.

    It's absurd for you to take this data and conclude for instance that Clinton's policies were the reason we had a balanced budget or low unemployment. He lost congress to the Republicans who finally balanced the budget after 30 years of deficits and he benefited from the Silicon Valley business boom which at the end of his term began to sink into recession.

    Clinton benefited from the fact that at the end of Bush Srís term the economy was turning the corner.

    I could go on and on with how specious your conclusions are based on the historic record; however, if your preference is a simplistic view suggesting that Democrat Administrations have shown better fiscal policies than Republicans in a vacuum of the historic events surrounding them past and present to rationalize the criminal like spending that we are now seeing, go for it.

    I know that taking data and arriving at simplistic conclusions is part of the Democrat DNA, but you really need to carefully view ALL the facts before suggesting that things are better under Democrat control based on the data you have provided.

  10. #110
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    I am not only criticizing the US about the debt situation. I am criticizing all the loser countries that cannot run surpluses, which is a situation created by the moron capitalist system.. All nations SHOULD run surpluses and save money for time of crisis for example, and build up state funds rather than state debt. Thats just how it must and will be, inevitable, eventually.
    All nations to run surpluses Do explain how that is achieved...
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •