What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
obama wants to cut the deficit by half, and by having adding 9 billion next year how does obama plan on doing that?

is this government math?
 
Bush was last responsible for the $1.4 trillion federal budget which covered FY 2009...

..a month after taking Office, Obama stated he would half that $1.4 trillion deficit before the end of his first term.

Obama first presided over the FY 2010 federal budget and he's presided over two more since then; his fourth federal budget will be submitted tomorrow and he is forecasting it to cost around $901 trillion, and that's deducting what many are calling the "gimmicky" amount of $850 billion for the lessening of expenditures for the Iraq and Afghanistan situations.

2012 - 1.33 trillion - Obama

2011 - 1.296 trillion - Obama

2010 - 1.267 trillion - Obama

2009 - 1.4 trillion - Bush

So, granting the FY 2013 deficit of only $901 trillion, that means Obama's first term racked-up a total of around $4.8 trillion in federal budget deficits alone...

...the national debt will surely be past the $17 trillion mark on inaugaration day 2013, so that means the four years of Obama's first term federal budget deficits have accounted for almost 30% of the total national debt owed.

When Obama took office, the national debt was just over $10 trillion...

...during his first term, that amount will have increased at least 70% to at least $17 trillion.
 
Bush was last responsible for the $1.4 trillion federal budget which covered FY 2009...

..a month after taking Office, Obama stated he would half that $1.4 trillion deficit before the end of his first term.

Obama first presided over the FY 2010 federal budget and he's presided over two more since then; his fourth federal budget will be submitted tomorrow and he is forecasting it to cost around $901 trillion, and that's deducting what many are calling the "gimmicky" amount of $850 billion for the lessening of expenditures for the Iraq and Afghanistan situations.

2012 - 1.33 trillion - Obama

2011 - 1.296 trillion - Obama

2010 - 1.267 trillion - Obama

2009 - 1.4 trillion - Bush

So, granting the FY 2013 deficit of only $901 trillion, that means Obama's first term racked-up a total of around $4.8 trillion in federal budget deficits alone...

...the national debt will surely be past the $17 trillion mark on inaugaration day 2013, so that means the four years of Obama's first term federal budget deficits have accounted for almost 30% of the total national debt owed.

When Obama took office, the national debt was just over $10 trillion...

...during his first term, that amount will have increased at least 70% to at least $17 trillion.


What would you suggest Obama do?

1) Cut Medicare? Nope, Republicans constantly attack him for the idea and would block him.

2) Cut Defense? Nope, Republicans constantly attack him for the idea and would block him (other than executive branch DoD cuts).

3) Completely cancel federal retirement plans for people who have already earned them and cancel retirement plans for current workers? It's not a large enough budgetary item that a simple trimming of spending would have any impact. And yes I'm talking about canceling retirement for Veterans here.


No other budgetary items are large enough to make a difference if cut.

Can you tell us what's "gimmicky" about recalculating the budget to include not being in Iraq?
 
What would you suggest Obama do?

1) Cut Medicare? Nope, Republicans constantly attack him for the idea and would block him.

2) Cut Defense? Nope, Republicans constantly attack him for the idea and would block him (other than executive branch DoD cuts).

3) Completely cancel federal retirement plans for people who have already earned them and cancel retirement plans for current workers? It's not a large enough budgetary item that a simple trimming of spending would have any impact. And yes I'm talking about canceling retirement for Veterans here.


No other budgetary items are large enough to make a difference if cut.

Can you tell us what's "gimmicky" about recalculating the budget to include not being in Iraq?



there goes Merc, let the spending spree continue! we must have more spending. until government owns 95% of GDP America will never be free

oh wait:confused::eek:
 
This is actually one area where Republicans are hilarious. Here are some factoids about the Republican House budget (aka the Ryan plan) that make it total nonsense:


1) It would be completely unconstitutional under the Republicans' own Balanced Budget Amendment.

2) It raises taxes for the bottom 95% of Americans, violating the Republicans' own pledge not to raise taxes. Hooray for Republicans voting to force themselves to give more of their money to the government!

3) Abolishes all corporate income tax. Their tax burden is shifted to the middle class and the poor in the form of a giant VAT.

4) Cuts the marginal tax rate for everyone, but the rich get the biggest cut. The tax burden on the rich is then shifted to the middle class and the poor in the VAT.

5) Abolishes the capital gains tax. That way the wealthy can pay 0% income tax. The middle class pick up the bill.

6) Relies on billions in cuts/freezes in discretionary spending. The plan just doesn't specify which items would be cut and each item of course is a fight. Nobody thinks it's politically possible cut education, the EPA, the CIA, immunizations for kids, and VA benefits all at the same time. Nonetheless, the Ryan plan assumes all these things will be cut in order to make his numbers work.

7) Republicans didn't think that $4 trillion (over 4 years) of lost revenue from these tax cuts should be considered in their budget projection propaganda. Even the arch-conservative American Enterprise Center admits as much. So that balanced budget is actually a $4 trillion deficit, and it only look that good if Paul Ryan pulls out a magic wand and gets all his discretionary cuts.
 
Please be advised, there's no area of Democrat policy that isn't hilarious.:rolleyes:

Obama would also impose a new $61 billion tax over 10 years on big banks aimed at recovering the costs of the financial bailout and providing money to help homeowners facing foreclosure on their homes. It would raise $41 billion over 10 years by eliminating tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies and claims significant savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This can't possibly raise energy costs. :cool:
 
Making the military safe for Colonels like you Merc, notwithstanding my own chargrin, has provoked a laugh-in inside military circles in Russia and China. There are rumors that the bayonet ranges of both of those militaries are fixing rubber dildos on the ends of their rifles in preparation for war with America. :rolleyes:

Are you getting your rumors from the same sources that told you that Obama was a Marxist?














:D
 
Making the military safe for Colonels like you Merc, notwithstanding my own chargrin, has provoked a laugh-in inside military circles in Russia and China. There are rumors that the bayonet ranges of both of those militaries are fixing rubber dildos on the ends of their rifles in preparation for war with America. :rolleyes:


Russia and China already allowed gays to serve openly in their military.
 
Look, Obama's policies are steeped in Marxist type solutions, notwithstanding your ignorance of what that means. Your assumption that a definition of such requires a mathematical solution generated by an over clocked quad core CPU is utterly false, dumb, and naive.



:D


How come Republicans aren't steeped in Marxist type solutions? Medicare Part-D? No Child Left Behind? The huge range of welfare programs that Republicans want to keep including Medicare which accounts for 1/4 of the federal budget? Public schools? Public hospitals? TARP and other bailouts?

If you say Obama is a Marxist (which he is not), then you must also put the GOP in the same category.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top