• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

Goldenboy219 said:
Such as??? I would love to see what you are counting as "stimulus"...
Click to expand...



- Hercules, Calif., wants $2.5 million in hard-earned taxpayer money for a "Waterfront Duck Pond Park," and another $200,000 for a dog park.

- Euless, Texas, wants $15 million for the Midway Park Family Life Center, which, you'll be glad to note, includes both a senior center and aquatic facility.

- Natchez, Miss., "needs" a new $9.5 million sports complex "which would allow our city to host major regional and national sports tournaments."

- Henderson, Nev., is asking for $20 million to help "develop a 60 acre multi-use sports field complex."

- Brigham City, Utah, wants $15 million for a sports park.

- Arlington, Texas, needs $4 million to expand its tennis center.

- Miami, Fla., needs $15 million for a "Moore Park Community Center, Tennis Center and Day Care" facility. The city is also desperate for $3.6 million to build a covered basketball court and a new tennis court at Robert King High Park. Then there's the $94 million Orange Bowl parking garage you are being asked to pay for.

- La Porte, Texas, wants $7.6 million for a "Life Style Center." And Oakland, Calif., needs $1 million for Fruitvale Latino Cultural and Performing Arts Center.





:mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
And his first act in this deficit reduction is.......

Spending almost a trillion dollars.

I'm so confused. :mrgreen:

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Hello my Liberal buddies. I have a few questions for you.

1. Did your heart skip a beat from fear/shock when you heard Obama's proclamation/promise to cut the deficit in half?

2. Do you wish he hadn't said it?

3. Do you think this could be his "Read my lips" moment?

4. Do you believe he will achieve this?

5. Do you believe him or think he is full of "it"?
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
- Hercules, Calif., wants $2.5 million in hard-earned taxpayer money for a "Waterfront Duck Pond Park," and another $200,000 for a dog park.

- Euless, Texas, wants $15 million for the Midway Park Family Life Center, which, you'll be glad to note, includes both a senior center and aquatic facility.

- Natchez, Miss., "needs" a new $9.5 million sports complex "which would allow our city to host major regional and national sports tournaments."

- Henderson, Nev., is asking for $20 million to help "develop a 60 acre multi-use sports field complex."

- Brigham City, Utah, wants $15 million for a sports park.

- Arlington, Texas, needs $4 million to expand its tennis center.

- Miami, Fla., needs $15 million for a "Moore Park Community Center, Tennis Center and Day Care" facility. The city is also desperate for $3.6 million to build a covered basketball court and a new tennis court at Robert King High Park. Then there's the $94 million Orange Bowl parking garage you are being asked to pay for.

- La Porte, Texas, wants $7.6 million for a "Life Style Center." And Oakland, Calif., needs $1 million for Fruitvale Latino Cultural and Performing Arts Center.





:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I am partial to sports complexes, but only if they are in big cities and not in nowhere Mississippi. If the state wanted to build a freaking sports complex labeled stimulus in the city i live, instead of redesigning the roads and highways here (which i view as an utter disaster in terms of design) i would be kinda pissed off. Hopefully that didn't jinx it:doh
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I am partial to sports complexes, but only if they are in big cities and not in nowhere Mississippi. If the state wanted to build a freaking sports complex labeled stimulus in the city i live, instead of redesigning the roads and highways here (which i view as an utter disaster in terms of design) i would be kinda pissed off. Hopefully that didn't jinx it:doh
Click to expand...



Note the poor NY Islanders. Wang wants to build a HUGE arena and complex of housing, stores, etc.... All payed for by him....


The dump known as Uniondale are giving him a hard time....



But I digress..... ;)
 
Orius said:
I see your point on a couple of things, like the golf carts, and maybe even the clean coal projects... but did anyone expect the democrats to not inject their self-interested ambitions into the stimulus bill?
Click to expand...
So, you're arguing that there really is no "change" in DC
 
Truth Detector said:
I'd like to see the fuzzy math it takes to assume that withdrawing from Iraq will somehow save $100 billion a year.
Click to expand...
Especially given that The Obama pledged to move troops to Afghanistan -- where they are harder to base, harder to supply, harder to support, and where it is harder for them to get around. I'd guess that each trooper in Afhganistan, all told, costs 2x what they cost in Iraq.
 
Truth Detector said:
I'd like to see the fuzzy math it takes to assume that withdrawing from Iraq will somehow save $100 billion a year.

The military is not going to disappear, at least not yet anyway. So where are all these costs savings other than the cost of flying personnel back and forth from Iraq and supplies going to Iraq instead of where the troops would be stationed anyway?

In addition to this fuzzy math savings, they don't account for the proposed increased costs to shift troops into the Afghanistan theatre.

The additional math that has not been accounted for is what happens if we abandon Iraq, in an effort to pay the $2.5 trillion in deficit spending this President has supported without any debate on funding, and Iraq descends into chaos thus causing rampant disruptions in the world oil supply?

Frankly, the only people who aren't laughing at Obama's criminally negligent spending are those who are either too ignorant to comprehend the impending disaster that will turn America into a giant Zimbabwe or those who willfully suspend their disbelief for purely political power purposes.
Click to expand...

Its not fuzzy math at all. The Iraq war cost approximately $100 billion a year(average until now, but declining, just for Iraq, on top of $450 billion in defense related spendings annually. Iraq is not covered in the budget, but in added costs, or packages that the congress have to approve.

wikipedia - US federal budget 2008, check it yourself.

In 10 years including interest rates on the borrowed money to go to Iraq, the US will save the equal amount of the cost of the stimulus package, just by withdrawing from Iraq. Approximately.
 
Truth Detector said:
I see you are having difficulty separating the costs to fight two wars that Congress and the people of America supported and the willful irresponsible spending without any discussion of how to fund it going on now.
Click to expand...

Did anyone discuss how you are to pay for the Iraq war? Its just bulging debts, you cannot afford Iraq without going further into deficits and debts.. Iraq is paid by debts and future interest rates on those debts.. I don't remember ANY discussion about how the US is going to pay back the Iraq war spendings.
 
He's not off to a very good start. But why not reach for the stars and remove the budget deficit all together so we can start paying off our astronomical debt?
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Did anyone discuss how you are to pay for the Iraq war? Its just bulging debts, you cannot afford Iraq without going further into deficits and debts.. Iraq is paid by debts and future interest rates on those debts.. I don't remember ANY discussion about how the US is going to pay back the Iraq war spendings.
Click to expand...

It's the same way we pay for everything. It's as bad an idea for Iraq as it is for everything else the government does.
 
RightOfCenter said:
He's not off to a very good start. But why not reach for the stars and remove the budget deficit all together so we can start paying off our astronomical debt?
Click to expand...

Fact:
The only reason FY2010 will have any deficit at all is that The Obama and the Demcrats CHOOSE to run one.
 
RightOfCenter said:
He's not off to a very good start. But why not reach for the stars and remove the budget deficit all together so we can start paying off our astronomical debt?
Click to expand...

Its not big at all. Just 12 trillion and increasing. The interest rates of that is only $400 billion a year, or almost equal to your defense spending. Not to worry, he seems to want to increase your debt, to equal the interest rates or "beat" the military spending, to be able to brag that military spending is no more the biggest post..

Its stunning that US federal income is about $2.4 trillion and $400 billion of that is just interest rates on debt.. Imagine all the better use it could come to if you had surpluses and could spend that money rather than throw it away at nothing.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Did anyone discuss how you are to pay for the Iraq war? Its just bulging debts, you cannot afford Iraq without going further into deficits and debts.. Iraq is paid by debts and future interest rates on those debts.. I don't remember ANY discussion about how the US is going to pay back the Iraq war spendings.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with the fuzzy math about how getting out of Iraq will help pay for the $2 trillion deficit spending Obama and the Democrats have got us into?

You need to do some math as to how much savings are REALLY going to occur by bailing out of Iraq, the potential costs if Iraq descends into anarchy and the FACT that even $100 billion a year with interest will take almost two decades to pay for the current deficit spending.

The math simply doesn't work except for those Liberals who now excuse runaway spending that they complained about only last year. I guess when it is YOUR guy spending it, it is okay.
 
Truth Detector said:
What has this got to do with the fuzzy math about how getting out of Iraq will help pay for the $2 trillion deficit spending Obama and the Democrats have got us into?

You need to do some math as to how much savings are REALLY going to occur by bailing out of Iraq, the potential costs if Iraq descends into anarchy and the FACT that even $100 billion a year with interest will take almost two decades to pay for the current deficit spending.

The math simply doesn't work except for those Liberals who now excuse runaway spending that they complained about only last year. I guess when it is YOUR guy spending it, it is okay.
Click to expand...

1. You said the stimulus package is irresponsible spending where no one talked about how to pay that back, and blame the democrats and Obama for that, like its completely idiotic.
2. I tell you/ask you that there was no discussion about the Iraq war and how to pay back that, as an equal in the republic party and Bush.. How can you overlook that if you dont support Obamas stimulous package, which at least is spend in America, rather than in some desert backwater country.
3. You start talking about something completely different.
4. I rewind and demand answer for what I was really asking. Dont avoid it.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Did anyone discuss how you are to pay for the Iraq war? Its just bulging debts, you cannot afford Iraq without going further into deficits and debts.. Iraq is paid by debts and future interest rates on those debts.. I don't remember ANY discussion about how the US is going to pay back the Iraq war spendings.
Click to expand...

Fascinating argument when considering that we are talking about a Government that just passed legislation that creates another $2 trillion in deficits and no discussion about paying for it.

Tell me Maximus, where in history has Government ever debated how to pay for a war before entering into one? We call that putting the cart before the horse. War spending is not something you plan for or budget for.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
Fascinating argument when considering that we are talking about a Government that just passed legislation that creates another $2 trillion in deficits and no discussion about paying for it.

Tell me Maximus, where in history has Government ever debated how to pay for a war before entering into one? We call that putting the cart before the horse. War spending is not something you plan for or budget for.

Carry on. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Considering the Bush administration planned for the Iraq war long before it began, it would have been prudent to figure out how it would be paid for. Oh, they said Iraq's oil would pay for it. How did that work out?
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
1. You said the stimulus package is irresponsible spending where no one talked about how to pay that back, and blame the democrats and Obama for that, like its completely idiotic.
2. I tell you/ask you that there was no discussion about the Iraq war and how to pay back that, as an equal in the republic party and Bush.. How can you overlook that if you dont support Obamas stimulous package, which at least is spend in America, rather than in some desert backwater country.
Click to expand...

How does one set budget or price for victory in war?

Secondly, your attempts to frame this around the Iraq War are merely a typical attempt to avoid the thread premise. The threads FALSE premise is that Obama thinks he can save $1.5 trillion by pulling us out of Iraq and cost cutting initiatives.

I clearly show how this has never been accomplished by ANYONE in Government, is nearly impossible to accomplish by changing light bulbs and green initiatives and that the costliest part of Government and the military are salaries and benefits.

But you want to rail about the cost of Iraq in a weak effort to avoid substance?

Here's a clue for you and the other forum Liberals who always defend Liberal spending and rail against Conservative tax rebates, Obama stated that we will be shifting the resources to Afghanistan.

Carry on; I look forward to me desperate flailing about the cost of the Iraq War while ignoring $2.5 trillion in willful deficit spending with no way to pay for it. It is irresponsible almost to a criminal degree.
 
Truth Detector said:
The math simply doesn't work except for those Liberals who now excuse runaway spending that they complained about only last year. I guess when it is YOUR guy spending it, it is okay.
Click to expand...

I find this comment funny. Does it seriously not occur to you that this statement swings both ways? Yeah, I mean Obama may do his damnedest to outspend Bush and his war, but that doesn't mean that Bush wasn't spending like a madman. It just means that maybe Obama is more efficient at spending huge sums of money. The Iraq war is on par with this stimulus bill, both are ridiculous. How can we now start hearing about fiscal responsibility coming from the right when they hadn't given it a second thought for the past 8 years? Both the sides are a bunch of phony bologna's.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
1. You said the stimulus package is irresponsible spending where no one talked about how to pay that back, and blame the democrats and Obama for that, like its completely idiotic.
2. I tell you/ask you that there was no discussion about the Iraq war and how to pay back that, as an equal in the republic party and Bush.. How can you overlook that if you dont support Obamas stimulous package, which at least is spend in America, rather than in some desert backwater country.
3. You start talking about something completely different.
4. I rewind and demand answer for what I was really asking. Dont avoid it.
Click to expand...

So we run the country into debt via a war to prevent terrorism. Ok, we need to pay it back. So, we pass a $800 billion bail out plan... Mommy always told me 2 wrongs don't make a right... As for your first point, it was irresponsible spending when you pick it apart.

Considering it was rammed down our throats as providing the neccesities and yet:

$10 billion + on enhancing credit and home loan asscebilites. *This is exactly what got us into the crisis to begin with*
~$13 billion on providing internet access *Has internet become a neccesity?*

That's $23 billion right there. Dare we go further into it...
 
Economics 101:

Increase spending in a recession and take on debt to stimulate the economy, then reduce spending during periods of economic growth, and reduce debt service as a percentage of Federal Outlays.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Economics 101:

Increase spending in a recession and take on debt to stimulate the economy, then reduce spending during periods of economic growth, and reduce debt service as a percentage of Federal Outlays.
Click to expand...

And that's worked so well for us that we're in Trillions of dollars of debt. High 5!
 
Nep188 said:
And that's worked so well for us that we're in Trillions of dollars of debt. High 5!
Click to expand...

It's not a problem with the method as much as it's a problem with the execution. The government doesn't actually cut spending....ever.
 
Ikari said:
It's not a problem with the method as much as it's a problem with the execution. The government doesn't actually cut spending....ever.
Click to expand...

Valid argument, but if the execution of a method is off, should we not alter the method to improve the execution? Or sit back and watch it continue to fail... miserably.

And that's still not my point... How the hell does providing internet service stimulate the economy. Hell, let's broadcast QVC on every TV channel until people buy stuff. That would work better...
 
Ikari said:
It's not a problem with the method as much as it's a problem with the execution. The government doesn't actually cut spending....ever.
Click to expand...

I will agree with that. However, you don't have to cut spending in times of economic growth. You just have to reduce it relative to population growth and inflation. Which we did do back in the 90s, as a result debt service as a percentage of federal outlays dropped considerably.

Just the same, the worst time to cut spending would be right now.
 
Nep188 said:
Valid argument, but if the execution of a method is off, should we not alter the method to improve the execution? Or sit back and watch it continue to fail... miserably.

And that's still not my point... How the hell does providing internet service stimulate the economy. Hell, let's broadcast QVC on every TV channel until people buy stuff. That would work better...
Click to expand...

I don't think the vast majority of what government could do would be helpful. And in practice, they rarely do anything which is helpful. All this spending is just so they can spend tons of money; probably funnel as much as possible to their buddies in the process. Untrustworthy pirates (and not the cool type of pirates either...like Johnny Depp) the whole lot of them. The internet service is probably so they can get their greedy little hands on the internet. That's been a goal of government for sometime, and if they can claim it as government utility, they can censor, police, and spy on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom