Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 127

Thread: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    The "cuts" are meaningless and only intended to give Obama and his supporters talking points.

    Its so transparent that even his butt kissing media is having a hard time spinning it as anything but a pathetically laughable BS routine.
    Last edited by Triad; 05-07-09 at 03:50 PM.

  2. #52
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    While I can appreciate the desperate situation the people of Michigan are going through, they did elect Democrats for decades to run their Governments just as the citizens of California have and as a result, BOTH states suffer ABOVE average unemployment rates and HUGE deficits.
    John Engler was a democrat? Better not tell him that, he might be a bit peeved. Note, since your ignorance is showing, he was our governor here until 2003. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a democrat. Careful, he might terminate you for calling him that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    But when we debate National Politics and the state of the WHOLE economy, compared to the worst times during the Crater years, we have not reached them yet.
    You have some figures to back this up with? A quick google search found me this article, which contradicts you: U.S. economy shrinks 6.1% in Q1. From that article: "the current quarter coupled with the 6.3 percent decline in fourth-quarter 2008 ó the biggest drop in 25 years ó created the worst economy over a six-month period in 50 years, according to the U.S. Commerce Department". I showed you my figures, now you show me yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    It is easy to look up the facts; and yet, during the Crater years we didn't have politicians fear mongering the American people to promote marching the nation deeper into debt.
    Wat, wait...did you just say something good about Carter, a democrat? By the way, facts are not a bad thing, they are actually good, if often inconvenient to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    When I bought my first home in 1985 I think it was, my beginning interest rate was a variable rate at 8% with a cap of 16.5%. Now THAT is BAD. Compared to now, we haven't even begun to see bad.

    The national rate of unemployment during the peak of the Carter years was around 10.5% and inflation was around 10%. Now THAT is BAD. Compared to now, we haven't even begun to see bad.

    Perhaps you were in a deep slumber during those years or too young to remember, but the notion that what we have been experiencing as being the worst since the depression is nothing more than fear mongering intended to promote a political agenda; in my humble, educated and experienced OPINION.
    If I remember right, the fed raises interest rates to deal with inflation. So of course your interest rate was high, but at least property values where going up, which offsets the loan rate some. In fact, if I understand how things work right, 8 % interest on a loan with 10 % inflation means you are making money.

    On your unemployment rate numbers: The Bureau of Labor Statistics says you are mistaken(note, not sure if that link will take you to the chart for Carter, you might have to enter the dates yourself). The highest monthly unemployment rate under Carter was 7.8 %.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,879

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    You remarked that it was signifucant that The Obama had (supposedly) budgeted fuds for Iraq/Afghanistan. If true, HOW is that significant? HOW is that relevant?
    Because including the spending on the occupations will end up with a significantly larger budget than the previous year, which was under the Bush administration who did not include spending on the occupations.

    However, I haven't had time to look into the budget, as I said earlier, to determine if the spending on the occupations was actually included in the FY2010 budget, and if so how much they budgeted. I was merely throwing it out as a possible reason for the significant increase in budgeted spending.

    That's down from 1/5th
    Actually, it is up 4%.

    I would ask again, what does this debate have to do with George Bush or how they accounted for the war spending? Bush isnít in charge anymore and had nothing to do with the formulation of the current budget and its corresponding trillions in deficits so why bring the name or what occurred up in every thread started about Obama?
    I was comparing the budgets of FY2009 and FY2010. Incidentally, the Bush administration was responsible for the FY2009 budget, so I referred to it as such. It was not an attack on Bush at all. If you like, you can replace any references to the Bush administration with "the FY2009 budget".

    We are talking about the CURRENT administration, the historically unprecedented spending us into a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit and the reality that we are still waiting for an HONEST debate as to how they are going to pay for it.

    The laughable denial so far is that Obama found $17 billion in savings; how is this even remotely going to pay for the deficit.

    The REAL story here is that this is a deliberate attempt to AVOID any HONEST discussion about how they are going to have to SIGNIFICANTLY increase taxes ACROSS the board for purely political purposes by waiting until AFTER the 2010 mid term elections.
    I don't think I ever said that any of this was wrong, and unless you can show where I am doing so, I politely request that you stop treating me like an opportunist partisan. I am not interested in defending Obama or his budget, nor am I interested in attacking it; I am merely pointing out factors that should be brought to the attention of those having such a discussion.

    Unlike you, I have no personal stake in this, as I support neither the democrats nor the republicans. In fact, I think that in terms of Obama's budget we are in agreement on a lot of aspects.

    Personally, I think that the administration's policies have provided a good rebound in the very short term, as we are currently seeing, but that in the mid- to long-term they are going to have disastrous effects.

    Transparency? What a freaking laugh! The only thing transparent with this President is the obvious transparency that exists between his BIG ears.
    How does making fun of his ears contribute to an "HONEST discussion," exactly?

  4. #54
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Because including the spending on the occupations will end up with a significantly larger budget than the previous year, which was under the Bush administration who did not include spending on the occupations.
    But, its not significasntly larger. $513B to $533B is only $20B and therefore does NOT cover the costs of the 'occupation' of Afghanistan/Iraq.

    However, I haven't had time to look into the budget, as I said earlier, to determine if the spending on the occupations was actually included in the FY2010 budget, and if so how much they budgeted. I was merely throwing it out as a possible reason for the significant increase in budgeted spending.
    The increase of the DoD budget is $20B. Thats not even close to an explanation.

    Actually, it is up 4%.
    1/6th (FY2010) is smaller than 1/5th (2009).
    DOWN to 1/6th of total spending.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,879

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    But, its not significasntly larger. $513B to $533B is only $20B and therefore does NOT cover the costs of the 'occupation' of Afghanistan/Iraq.
    Which is why I said that I wasn't sure if it was included in the FY2010 budget. It might be, but it might be allocated elsewhere.

    1/6th (FY2010) is smaller than 1/5th (2009).
    DOWN to 1/6th of total spending.
    "Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent increase over 2009."
    -FY2010 DoD Budget (WARNING: PDF)

  6. #56
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    "Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent increase over 2009."
    -FY2010 DoD Budget (WARNING: PDF)
    Yes.... but as TOTAL SPENDING is up, that 4% increast STILL means that the % of defense spending in terms of total spending DROPS from ~20% to ~16%. That, alone, makes it impossible to argue that increased defense spending is responsible for the massive increase in spending.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,879

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    Yes.... but as TOTAL SPENDING is up, that 4% increast STILL means that the % of defense spending in terms of total spending DROPS from ~20% to ~16%. That, alone, makes it impossible to argue that increased defense spending is responsible for the massive increase in spending.
    Ok, now I see what you're saying. However, I wasn't making the claim that the increase in DoD spending was solely responsible for the total increase. I was simply asserting that the cost of the occupations was added into the FY2010 budget (which I am still unsure about, as I won't have time to look into it until either this weekend or next week), which could be a factor in the increase in spending.

    The reason I initially reported the DoD spending was because I assumed that it would go under there, although from looking at it we can conclude that either the funds for the occupations were allocated elsewhere or were not factored into the budget at all.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    What "Occupation" are you talking about?
    ..the US hasn't occupied a nation now for almost 6 years.

    No matter how you cut it or distort it the entire war and all US activities in places like Bosnia etc do are not even a drop in the bucket in expense compared to Obama's spending.

    Be blunt about it its another meaningless talking point pushed by Obama and his supporters.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,879

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    What "Occupation" are you talking about?
    ..the US hasn't occupied a nation now for almost 6 years.
    I was referring to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought that was obvious.

  10. #60
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,720

    Re: Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Analyst View Post
    While I agree the spending is beyond absurd, the following article does provide some reinforcement of his claims of cutting spending dramatically by the end of his term. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's better than nothing.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us...emc=rss&src=ig
    Actually, its worse than nothing if he doesn't keep his promise. He has broken a few of those already, so what makes you think he will keep this one?
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •