RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half

RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/23/2009 11:51:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 its called I dance a little side step! he wants to cut the deficit but he added close to 10 % on the national debt. I now understand that hope n CHANGE part. the change was to go from tax n spend to spend then tax. Not even a nice try. We have been borrowing and spending for all but the Clinton years since Reagan in 1981. Borrow and spend is the new so-called conservative repub party.

MrRodgers -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/23/2009 11:55:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 Actually George W bush in August of 2001, despite a recession in early 2001. We were on track to have the second largest surplus. Then we all know what occurred in 2001 and led to a war. But before the attacks we were on track for a surplus. quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: lets see in a recession you are going to raise taxes in order to cut the deficit. Which economic theory is he following? You cant just tax you way out of debt. What areas are you going to cut back in spending? No, Shake...first you get the economy out of it's tailspin with an injection of much needed liquidity. Then, when the economy is stable again, you take out the liquidity. During this you figure out a way to turn a deficit into a surplus....now who was it who last had us with a government surplus? Reagan? no...that's not it....Bush the Elder.....nope, nope...he isn't who I'm thinking of. Bush the Younger....damn...he wasn't it either....oh yeah...I remember...it was Clinton...I suppose no one was reading the Wall Street Journal when they were so busy reading about his sex life in the Post. The tax revenue cuts came first, months before the war. He had to take care of his buddies first.

MasterShake69 -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 12:10:16 AM)
oops sorry it was a larger surplus that i said. It was 158 billion according to the office of management and budget. That was as of August 22, 2001. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-29.pdf quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The tax revenue cuts came first, months before the war. He had to take care of his buddies first.

rulemylife -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 12:28:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 The economy pulled out of the 2nd quarter recession. As of August 2001 the US was on target for 130-140 billion surplus. which would have been the second highest in our nations history. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Oh come on now! That surplus was a carryover from the Clinton budget. The same surpluses that we had in 1999 and 2000. The surplus Bush decided to use for tax cuts for his wealthy supporters instead of for more practical purposes. You know the surpluses you were just telling me the other day didn't exist? Whatever happened in 2001 is not relevant to the 2001 fiscal year budget. Obama is currently operating under Bush's budget, just like Bush was operating under Clinton's budget in 2001. Any surplus was generated in the 2000 fiscal year. Whatever happened to the economy in 2001 was not reflected in the budget until 2002. And the biggest thing that happened was Bush pissing away the surplus in a tax cut that was not necessary for economic reasons but based purely on ideology.

MasterShake69 -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 12:34:10 AM)
what was the exact amount that went away due to the tax cut? click on the link to find out ;) http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-29.pdf [/quote] Whatever happened in 2001 is not relevant to the 2001 fiscal year budget. Obama is currently operating under Bush's budget, just like Bush was operating under Clinton's budget in 2001. Any surplus was generated in the 2000 fiscal year. Whatever happened to the economy in 2001 was not reflected in the budget until 2002. And the biggest thing that happened was Bush pissing away the surplus in a tax cut that was not necessary for economic reasons but based purely on ideology. [/quote]

rulemylife -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 12:38:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArizonaSunSwitch I hate to tell you but tax cuts increase government tax revenue, within a year anyway, (as long as total federal, state, local tax is above 15%). That reduces deficits, it doesn't increase them. It did so during Bush's tax cuts, Reagan's tax cuts, and JFK's tax cuts and every other time it's been tried. Tax increases reduce government tax revenue immediately and increase deficits. Well, I hate to tell you, but in case you didn't notice that didn't happen with the Bush tax cuts. Every single year Bush was in office the budget ran a deficit.

awmslave -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 1:03:36 AM)
Where are Obama advisers? He should not make such statments at this time. The fact is Obama knows practically nothing about economy. What deficit in half: 4 trillion he creates this year? How much deficit US can handle without creating inflation? US pays about 500 billion interest on debt this year.

MasterShake69 -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 1:05:17 AM)
As of August 22, 2001 single largest reduction of the 2001 surplus was the increase in spending due to the DEC 2000 appropriations bill. the next was the 40 billion for the tax rebates. And even after a second quarter recession still on target for a 158 billion dollar surplus. Then the 9-11 attacks took place and defense spending went through the roof along with all other spending too. If 9-11 didn't take place and spending stayed at the 2000 levels then all of the Bush years would have been surpluses.

rulemylife -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 1:50:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 what was the exact amount that went away due to the tax cut? click on the link to find out ;) http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-29.pdf From your own link: Washington, DC, August 22, 2001 – The FY 2001 budget surplus is $158 billion, the second largest in U.S. history, according to the Mid-Session Budget Review released today by the Office of Management and Budget. The projected FY 2002 surplus is $173 billion........... Again, whatever budget surplus existed in 2001 was a carryover from 2000. Note the word "is" when they refer to the 2001 figures and the word "projected" when referring to 2002. That's because the 2002 budget is based on what happens in 2001. And here's what happened: U.S. Treasury Releases FY 2002 Deficit Numbers \| OMB Watch On Friday, October 25, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitchell Daniels released the Treasury Department’s summary of the budget results for fiscal year 2002, which ended September 30. According to this report, FY 2002 closed with a $159 billion deficit....

corysub -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 3:02:32 AM)
I still find it facinating to see the responses liberals make on any question...any thread. This thread is a good example. The liberals have nothing to say bout Obama's "plans" to slash the deficit in half in what, five years! Ok, not unusual, it's an familiar old political song whose words every pol in Washington knows by heart... And how is this question being discussed...by talking about George Bush going back to 2001! Never any discussion about how they think such an admirable goal might be achieved, or the likelyhood of it coming even close to success. Nope, Obama might be talking and implementing "Change", but his drones just keep on talking about W as if HE was still in the White House making decisions. I do believe that if the liberals didn't have GW to keep ranting against...they would be totally MUTE!

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 4:07:02 AM)
quote: . I do believe that if the liberals didn't have GW to keep ranting against...they would be totally MUTE! Once again, you tar everyone who disagrees with you with a single brush. I now I have not said a word about the fact that the meltdown occurred on W. watch, because I am far more concerned with how we will fix this situation than I am with blaming someone for it. As for how this deficit reductions (as previous posts have pointed out a different matter than a debt reduction) seems to me to be as follows: First, correct the economic meltdown we are currently experiencing by injecting liquidity (i.e. cash) into the system until it is functioning on it's own again. Second, cut expenditures ($90 billion a year in Iraq, for example, as well as streamlining the budget (an admittedly Herculean task but a necessary one.) Once again, turning deficit into surplus is not an easy thing...nor something anyone feels entirely comfortable that the government will do, but it has been done before. Bill Clinton did it, which proves that it is at least theoretically possible. I, for one, am willing to see what the new administration comes up with before stating with such neo-con certainty that they have failed before they have begun. Oh....and just for laughs, perhaps someone with interest could keep a count for a week of just how many times we liberals mention W's economic ineptitude vs. the number of times you fine, reasonable conservatives bring up the fact that Clinton got an illicit blowjob. Now THAT is an issue that still affects every American to this very day, isn't it?

rulemylife -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 5:04:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub I still find it facinating to see the responses liberals make on any question...any thread. This thread is a good example. The liberals have nothing to say bout Obama's "plans" to slash the deficit in half in what, five years! Ok, not unusual, it's an familiar old political song whose words every pol in Washington knows by heart... And how is this question being discussed...by talking about George Bush going back to 2001! Never any discussion about how they think such an admirable goal might be achieved, or the likelyhood of it coming even close to success. Nope, Obama might be talking and implementing "Change", but his drones just keep on talking about W as if HE was still in the White House making decisions. I do believe that if the liberals didn't have GW to keep ranting against...they would be totally MUTE! No, he's not still in the White House making decisions, but his decisions are directly affecting us now and will be for years to come. I'm sure Dubya likes to believe that he can walk out of office and wash his hands of everything, a belief you seem to share, but the reality is the "legacy" he worries so much about is still being formed.

jlf1961 -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 5:16:38 AM)
Four the last four years we have had budget deficits, doesnt matter who was in charge, they existed. Strangely enough, it has been Republican policy to cut taxes by a large percentage on higher incomes and a very LOW percentage on lower incomes. Democrats have raised taxes on upper incomes, and cut taxes on lower incomes. For the longest time, the United States could support a guns and butter economy, we proved that in the cold war. With the end of the cold war, people wanted less guns and more butter, so the consumer market took over. It doesnt take an economist to figure that much out, just look at history. Now here is the rub, the defense department made it clear that the US could afford to fight a war in Afghanistan, both financially AND logistically (men and equipment) but made it clear we did not have the capability of fighting two wars at once, when it was decided to invade Iraq. Again, a statement that has been proved accurate by history. As spending got shoved into military areas, the consumer market suffered, again proved in history. Now, you want to scream bloody murder because people are blasting bush, gee look at the last 8 years. Who was in charge? Right, there was 9/11, the war on terrorism, justified in Afghanistan.

TNstepsout -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 5:30:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales I have one question: If Obama DOES manage to pull this off. If he a) manages to see us through this economic meltdown and b) manage to cut the deficit in half, what are all you hopping mad conservatives going to say then? I want to see who has the guts to say that THEN they would be happier..and in 2013, believe me, I'll be checking They will say that the meltdown was a result of problems Bush inherited from Clinton and that the recovery was the result of policies Bush put into place. These things take time ya know!

Sanity -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 6:04:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboy291 The only drones who are whinning are people like you corysub, coldwarrior, sanity and the rest. Your the drones, your the whinners. And no matter how you spin it or try to pass blame to Obama, it doesen't change this one little fact. Bush ran up the trillion dollar deficit. And your criticising Obama for wanting to reduce is an act of desperation from a group of very sore losers. That's all it is. You failed to understand the OP. I was asking if President Obama thinks it's actually possible to halve the deficit while throwing a trillion dollars at all these pet projects of his. I was asking if he's sincere or if he was just spewing propaganda - if he's showing the "hope" or if he's just plain crazy. And I was asking why Obama sent Hillary to beg the Chinese for more loans if he truly intends to begin cutting the deficit. Bill Clinton on Obama: quote: Mr Clinton reflected growing misgivings among some Democrats that the President’s warnings about the economy are so dire that he risks smothering the confidence that will be needed to get America out of the crisis. He urged Mr Obama — who ran on a message of hope — to put on a more positive face when speaking to the country about the economy. “I just want the American people to know that he’s confident that we are going to get out of this and that he feels good about the long run,” the former President told the Good Morning America programme. Hillary in China: quote: Demoting human rights Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have set back the cause of human rights in China when she said on her Asia tour that while the United States will continue to press China on issues such as Tibet, Taiwan and human rights, "our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis." Clinton's position has two potentially detrimental effects. It undermines the long-fought campaign for a comprehensive foreign policy, one recognizing the interdependence of human rights concerns with traditional strategic goals. And it ultimately fails civil society groups in China and those suffering human rights abuses. Clinton's defenders would point out that there is nothing new here. The debate over linking human rights and trade preferences, for instance, is longstanding. It was President Bill Clinton, after all, who de-linked the two foreign policy issues in Chinese-U.S. relations in 1994, when China's "most favored nation" status was formally separated from its human rights record. quote: Clinton wraps Asia trip by asking China to buy US debt US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Sunday urged China to keep buying US debt as she wrapped up her first overseas trip, during which she agreed to work closely with Beijing on the financial crisis. Clinton made the plea shortly before leaving China, the final stop on a four-nation Asian tour that also took her to Japan, Indonesia and South Korea, where she worked the crowds to try to restore America's standing abroad. In Beijing, she called on authorities in Beijing to continue buying US Treasuries, saying it would help jumpstart the flagging US economy and stimulate imports of Chinese goods.

corysub -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 7:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 what was the exact amount that went away due to the tax cut? click on the link to find out ;) http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-29.pdf Whatever happened in 2001 is not relevant to the 2001 fiscal year budget. Obama is currently operating under Bush's budget, just like Bush was operating under Clinton's budget in 2001. Any surplus was generated in the 2000 fiscal year. Whatever happened to the economy in 2001 was not reflected in the budget until 2002. And the biggest thing that happened was Bush pissing away the surplus in a tax cut that was not necessary for economic reasons but based purely on ideology. So you are saying that a tax cut, which puts money back in the hands of a taxpayer who earned that money originally, was "pissing away money" versus, say, keeping those fund in the hands of politicians to be spent on favorite programs and grow the government. And am I incorrect than, that you would favor raising taxes now as Obama seems intent to do, in the midst of a recession. So you feel that the government (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) can spend those funds better than productive people who created that wealth. You do know that the government does not generate any money..everything it has it either takes from a producer or borrows. I don't understand the comment, therefore, that Bush pissed it away...?? Please explain, it would be very helpful to understand government economics froom a democrat point of view.

Termyn8or -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 10:59:40 AM)
fr, to noone in particular. I have been called an excellent moderator, although Mod11 might not agree. I have been reading this long enough that I think I detect the main problem. This applies to both "sides"of the argument, and in general. Your problem is that you are expecting fiduciary responsibility from people who have none. Obama may have been poor when he was young, but he didn't stay that way. Once the money rolls in they all seem to become drunken sailors, and that is how it is. As long as money and government are involved with one another, we will have these problems. You are expecting miracles and it is not going to happen. We have to be a bit more cognizant of human nature. If you were to give me a credit card with no limit, and someone else was pledged to make the payments you know damn well what would happen. And so do I. I admit it. Can you ? And can you see it in others ? Something more fundamental has to change, other than who sits in the big chair. Well that would be something, get the common Man, pay him about fifty grand a year or something. Let him know how it is not to be able to afford certain things, to have to pick and choose. Sort of like the Japanese engineering doctrine of price driven costing, rather than cost driven pricing. You have this much money, with it you must do this and that and the other thing. When that is gone there is no more. If you need to do something with money and you have none left you do what people used to do, you do without. Until it gets to that point, nothing is going to change, but I think that day is coming. That will be a sad day when "Backed by the full faith and credit of the US government" means nothing. I see us headed in that direction. I don't see anyone steering clear of that collision. Anyone. As long as they're OK, they think we're OK. You argue incessantly about this and that and never get to the root of the problem. This country has technically been in bankrupcy since 1933 at least, and all we do is deal in debt, and steal in the name of the Lord. (thanks Temptations for that one). It could be that they see all the money is fake, like scrip. It could be that they know we are totally screwed and just trying to maintain, or it could be that they just don't care. Either that or we are putting the wrong people in power. Seen it time and time again, the big three can't make ends meet but Toyota and Honda are doing just fine. Grow some fucking balls, I AM THE ONE WITH THE MONEY, YOU WANT SOME, COME TO WORK. Give me that chair, and you will see the unions gone by dawn. I solve problems, I do not perpetuate them with bandaids. Why don't our "leaders" know how to do that ? It is simple, because they don't have to. What say you ? T

rulemylife -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 11:57:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub So you are saying that a tax cut, which puts money back in the hands of a taxpayer who earned that money originally, was "pissing away money" versus, say, keeping those fund in the hands of politicians to be spent on favorite programs and grow the government. And am I incorrect than, that you would favor raising taxes now as Obama seems intent to do, in the midst of a recession. So you feel that the government (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) can spend those funds better than productive people who created that wealth. You do know that the government does not generate any money..everything it has it either takes from a producer or borrows. I don't understand the comment, therefore, that Bush pissed it away...?? Please explain, it would be very helpful to understand government economics froom a democrat point of view. You understand it, so let's not pretend otherwise. A tax cut takes revenue away from the government the same as increased spending. In this case, Bush's first tax cut (you do remember there was more than one?) was double the amount of the stimulus package that you have decided is going to end life as we know it and reduce us to a third world country. So on one hand you are saying tax cuts are acceptable, even though they create deficits and increase the country's debt, and on the other hand you complain of the spending because it creates deficits and increases the country's debt. And yes the government does generate wealth in the jobs it provides and the public works projects and other programs it undertakes. Just ask the folks at Halliburton if they believe the government doesn't create wealth.

subrob1967 -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 2:23:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboy291 No he did not, there's still a trillion dollar deficit and any money from that deficit that's added to the debt, is not his fault because he's not the one who ran up the deficit and you cannot elimiate a trillion dollar deficit in little over a month that he's been in office. Once again, you try to blame him for something that was Bush's fault and failed miserably. He didn't create this mess. He inherited it, and as I said it's gonna take quite a while to clean up the mess left over by 8yrs of incompetent "leadership" The President can't spend a penny not authorized by Congress, why is Bush getting all the blame & why are they getting a pass from the left? I say good luck to Hussein, he's going to need to stop lying, and actually allow transparency he promised, and as of yet, hasn't lived up to

slaveboy291 -> RE: Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half (2/24/2009 4:24:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboy291 No he did not, there's still a trillion dollar deficit and any money from that deficit that's added to the debt, is not his fault because he's not the one who ran up the deficit and you cannot elimiate a trillion dollar deficit in little over a month that he's been in office. Once again, you try to blame him for something that was Bush's fault and failed miserably. He didn't create this mess. He inherited it, and as I said it's gonna take quite a while to clean up the mess left over by 8yrs of incompetent "leadership" The President can't spend a penny not authorized by Congress, why is Bush getting all the blame & why are they getting a pass from the left? I say good luck to Hussein, he's going to need to stop lying, and actually allow transparency he promised, and as of yet, hasn't lived up to Why is the right so dellusional and thinking that Bush was a good President? Why does the right get so pissed off when they get attacked, but yet have no problem attacking other people? Why have the right abandoned debate in favor for attacking anybody who disagrees with them and asking circular question? Why do they hurl insults at people and then turn around and tell others not to throw insults at them and say the other side doesen't want to engage in debate but attacks when they do the same thing?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125