• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And his first act in this deficit reduction is.......

Spending almost a trillion dollars.

I'm so confused. :mrgreen:

Article is here.
 
It's called stimulus, and it's not that elusive a fact to understand.

Most countries are used to seeing stimulus policy in smaller amounts, in millions or even in billions... because of the scale, people are suddenly not understanding. The higher, the more risk, but also the higher pay off if the stimulus reboots the economy. All that money has a fixed return policy. If it works, it will actually decrease debt due to returns (the initial monetary input + economic development), and if it doesn't, well, at least they tried.
 
.....by raising your taxes.

And that position does not represent me. BTW, who are those guys that, a couple of hundred years ago, started a revolution because there was taxation without representation? :mrgreen:
 
It's called stimulus, and it's not that elusive a fact to understand.

Most countries are used to seeing stimulus policy in smaller amounts, in millions or even in billions... because of the scale, people are suddenly not understanding. The higher, the more risk, but also the higher pay off if the stimulus reboots the economy. All that money has a fixed return policy. If it works, it will actually decrease debt due to returns (the initial monetary input + economic development), and if it doesn't, well, at least they tried.

Actually, the US stimulus is rather small compared to some countries.. at least per capita.
 
It's called stimulus, and it's not that elusive a fact to understand.

Most countries are used to seeing stimulus policy in smaller amounts, in millions or even in billions... because of the scale, people are suddenly not understanding. The higher, the more risk, but also the higher pay off if the stimulus reboots the economy. All that money has a fixed return policy. If it works, it will actually decrease debt due to returns (the initial monetary input + economic development), and if it doesn't, well, at least they tried.

The best stimulus to our economies would be to run surpluses and have some money to spend on stimulus/public spending programs when its needed.
 
And his first act in this deficit reduction is.......

Spending almost a trillion dollars.

I'm so confused. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Nothing to be confused about.. He is taking the "run the country into bankruptcy" line, so that you can spend as much money now before you default on your debts..

Its quite the same as someone overly indebted who has given up paying back and now just races to see how much debt he can take on before he is "caught".
 
It's called stimulus, and it's not that elusive a fact to understand.


Apparently it is for you, since you call porkzilla "stimulus"..... :lol:


Most countries are used to seeing stimulus policy in smaller amounts, in millions or even in billions... because of the scale, people are suddenly not understanding. The higher, the more risk, but also the higher pay off if the stimulus reboots the economy. All that money has a fixed return policy. If it works, it will actually decrease debt due to returns (the initial monetary input + economic development), and if it doesn't, well, at least they tried.



field mice, golf carts. std testing. look at that "stimulus"..... :lol:
 
and "slashing" funding to the troops, including the 17k he just sent to afghanistan.

Actually, he do have some surprises up his sleeve, the US will withdraw their troops from Iraq, saving $100 billion a year, over 10 year saving the money he used on the stimulous package, including interests paid and being paid for the Iraq war spending..

Amazing that your interests rates on your state debts a few years from now will be $500 billion a year. Thats 1/4-5th of the federal tax incomes.
 
field mice, golf carts. std testing. look at that "stimulus"..... :lol:

Please provide evidence that these account for a more than miniscule portion of the stimulus package.
 
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? One the whole, the bill is far more about stimulus than pet projects. If the Republicans were in their position they would do the exact same thing... cover the bases, and then add the fluff. I'm not saying that justifies the Democrats doing it, but when you give the group in charge this kind of spending power, they are bound to drool a little bit.

Also, it would be difficult to justify that kind of spending after the stimulus package has been distributed because everyone's budget would be on a closely monitored system. It may be that they wanted to lump it in there now to get their pet projects out of the way so other things can be focused on later. But maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.
 
"Change has come to America." Wiggle your pocket, you can even hear it.
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/21/obama.deficit/index.html said:
From 2001 to 2008, Congress appropriated about $173 billion in taxpayer funds toward war-related efforts in Afghanistan and $657 billion in Iraq, according to estimates by the Congressional Research Service.

So you can drop $800 billion into two countries, but oh no... spend $800 billion on America and christ you're a socialist!
 
So you can drop $800 billion into two countries, but oh no... spend $800 billion on America and christ you're a socialist!



No,

If you nationalize banks you might be a socialist.

If you nationalize healthcare you might be a socialist.

If you raise taxes to pay for these things you might be a socialist.




But yeah, Bush went socialist first. Don't feel bad. ;)
 
Actually, he do have some surprises up his sleeve, the US will withdraw their troops from Iraq, saving $100 billion a year, over 10 year saving the money he used on the stimulous package, including interests paid and being paid for the Iraq war spending..

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.
 
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? One the whole, the bill is far more about stimulus than pet projects. If the Republicans were in their position they would do the exact same thing... cover the bases, and then add the fluff. I'm not saying that justifies the Democrats doing it, but when you give the group in charge this kind of spending power, they are bound to drool a little bit.

Also, it would be difficult to justify that kind of spending after the stimulus package has been distributed because everyone's budget would be on a closely monitored system. It may be that they wanted to lump it in there now to get their pet projects out of the way so other things can be focused on later. But maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.

All of your arguments are desperate attempts to justify this criminal irresponsible behavior by Obama and his minions.
 
So you can drop $800 billion into two countries, but oh no... spend $800 billion on America and christ you're a socialist!

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.

What I am also seeing from those who wallow in denial is that they desperately ignore the lies Democrats used to get into power and willfully ignore the reality that this spending is putting America into a hole deeper than any war time spending in the history of this nation for the pure purpose of expanding the Federal Governments control over our lives.

Democrats told us that they would be transparent, fiscally responsible and would PAY as they GO; what happened to these promises?

The ONLY reason Democrats in power REFUSE to have a debate on funding is that they know that the amount of taxes it would take to cover their power grab would cause MOST Americans to revolt.

Obama's solution to the lies and criminal and irresponsible spending has been to claim he will cut $1.5 trillion in spending by the end of his first term. But heck, when you are a Liberal it is not the results that matter, it is as you stated, that they tried and cared.

Tell that to yourself when you are standing in a food line waiting for a handout because jobs have vanished and your children's children will be paying for this stupidity for decades.

I find little comfort in the notion that if they fail, which spells disaster for Americans, that at least they tried; how absurd! How trite!
 
I read somewhere that if we were to divide all this money up it would equal over 200,000.00 per person, here in the US.

If that's true, does anybody think they are gonna get their share outta this?

Something tells me not. Call me jaded and skeptical. I dunno. :roll:
 
I read somewhere that if we were to divide all this money up it would equal over 200,000.00 per person, here in the US.

If that's true, does anybody think they are gonna get their share outta this?

Something tells me not. Call me jaded and skeptical. I dunno. :roll:

Simple math suggest this number is pretty conservative; if you look at the working population being perhaps between 100 to 150 million and the current deficit spending at about $3 trillion with interest, then add the deficit funding needed to keep SS and Medicare solvent another ($3 trillion?) and then look at paying down the current $11.5 trillion in debt, $200,000 per person seems right.

How much would it take just to settle the CURRENT debt is a scary proposition. But now add trillions more and the looming crises with SS and Medicare; anyone who defends this is wallowing in willful ignorance.
 
Actually, the US stimulus is rather small compared to some countries.. at least per capita.

Such as??? I would love to see what you are counting as "stimulus"...
 
Such as??? I would love to see what you are counting as "stimulus"...

I suspect universal health care is considered an economic stimulus by some. I also suspect those who view universal health care as a stimulus would also argue that military spending is NOT a stimulus.

:rofl
 
Back
Top Bottom