2010 midterm elections

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good question. The treasury printed 600 Billion two days ago and backed it with our women. No one will buy treasury bonds. Inflation will raise the cost of food for one and devalue the dollar even more in the immediate future. How wiill we rein in all that debt you ask? Why conquer the middle east and China. Have any doubts? Eventually we will save the world from itself.

You do realize Obama has spent 3 trillion in the two years he has been in office. The previously Dem controlled house took control of the house two years prior to Obama (2006) so add another 2 trillion. Obama and the Dems have racked up 5 trillion in debt since 2006. Like I said, no problem. Chump change for the real heroes of this country.

Spread the news 2008. Barry is out.

[flash=480,385]http://www.youtube.com/v/Je4cbBY0R0Y?fs=1&hl=en_US[/flash]



 
Let me preface this by saying, I support the cause of the wars in the middle east. However, I don't think it was handled in the most efficient or cost effective method.

I think it's important to complete the mission, but it has to be done in a more economical method. I really believe it could be done while requiring less financial resources. Once this war effort is over, that would be a huge relief to our national budget (if there is such a thing).
 

Ultimately, a crippling tax rate, as China and others *WILL* notice when the dollar devalues [too much]; it will be done under some kind of threat, as otherwise no elected parasite will want to raise taxes, only spending. America doesn't make as much anymore, so our standard of living will plummet as we can no longer afford to buy all the imported gadgets and other goods "we" love so much. The good news is, although it will take decades, it will mean the resurgence of American manufacturing jobs, although wages will be low. The difference between the Haves and the Have-Nots will be huge, until people realize that the Haves (e.g. lawyers, politicians, "investment" bankers, etc.) don't produce anything; they typically just move a lot of OPM around, skimming the flow. Hopefully it won't be too difficult (or cost too many productive lives) when that parasitic load is thrown off.
 
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/72404

Quote:

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.


Quote:

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
•President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

•President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

 
That blog from Heritage is a wee bit disingenuous.

Though YES! nothing was paid for over the last 9 years and is a serious drag on our fiscal condition, federal revenues as a percentage of GDP are effectively at their lowest level since the Great Depression (somewhere around 14%).

When it all shakes out (if it does) revenues will peak around 16-17% going forward and expenditures 'bottom' at around 22% (down from 25%). That's the gap that has to be closed.

The 'sweet spot' for expenditures/revenues seems to be around 19%.
 


Is this a joke or sarcasm?

You may not agree with the slant or bias of MSNBC (which is odd since Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough & Mike Barnacle provide a nice balance to Maddow, Matthews & Olberman) but they are FAR from disingenuous.

Your *Heritage Blogger* is lying by omission -- that's being disingenuous.

One example: When Dubya took office Federal debt was $5.73 trillion (and the unified budget had a surplus of $200+ billion). On the day Dubya (The *Debt Star* who along with his buddies never paid for anything) left office Federal debt was $10.63 trillion (and Federal debt increased $1.4+ trillion in the previous 365 days).

So when your *Heritage Blogger* says, "President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008," and the actual total Federal debt increased nearly $5 trillion during Dubya's 8 years in office, the blogger is being incredibly disingenuous and attempting to revise history.

Want some more examples? :lol:

 
Good luck with MSNBC. Same with CNN. Their ratings were great regarding the election coverage. The truth in the Heritage link is more than a politically correct guy like you can comprehend obviously. Your guy got royally spanked. Obama doesn't even take the blame for his party's debacle. Read the thread before posting and don't bother attacking me in this thread. I don't think I have ever been approached with red ink in all my years on this forum. Especially in regards to a subject of the three trillion in new debt Obama's stimulus has created not being at least pointed out in red ink. Start you own Obama thread.

Here's a topic.

Obama doesn't get it.

Here's another.

The nation realized Obama was on his way to great things when He narrowly edged out Beyonce for the Nobel Peace Prize. Did this delusion of grandeur cause the train wreck of the Democratic party?
 
I see your point. It's Bush's fault.

[:badge:3]


obamaapprovalindexnovem.jpg


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6776/obamaapprovalindexnovem.jpg

Edit to add this.

MSNBC's Olberman slips behind Nancy Grace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom