Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Budget Deficit Down, Lowest in 5 Years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I haven't verified these #'s - but i thought it was an interesting place to start.
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by alkemical View Post
      I haven't verified these #'s - but i thought it was an interesting place to start.
      No way that number isn't bull****.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by pricejj View Post
        . YOUR fascist corporatism is doing quite well in the Obama economy.

        Government is supposed to exist to create an environment in which free market economies can exist...not to create give zero-interest loans and taxpayer 'stimulus' to banks and other crony capitalists.

        Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Bernanke are some of the worst criminals in American history.
        Actually, our government was founded to, "... form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

        It doesn't say anything in there about free market economies. In fact, it doesn't mention economies of any kind whatsoever.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
          No way that number isn't bull****.
          Which #?

          I can help you with some places to start for your research -

          http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/23

          It's commondreams - so some of the info will be slanted - but you have to start somewhere.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
            None. It was in 2006 when the Democrats took control of congress that deficit spending increased. By 2008 it had increased 400 percent to 1.2 Trillion.
            so tell us how medicare part D and the Iraq war brought down our deficit? dems weren't in control then. BTW no money can be spent without senate(controlled by rethugs at the time)approval. constitution requires spending to be originated out of HOR,but still requires the presidents signature.

            Again what spending bills did GWB sign into law?
            Last edited by peacepipe; 11-06-2013, 08:00 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by peacepipe View Post
              so tell us how medicare part D and the Iraq war brought down our deficit? dems weren't in control then. BTW no money can be spent without senate(controlled by rethugs at the time)approval. constitution requires spending to be originated out of HOR,but still requires the presidents signature.

              Again what spending bills did GWB sign into law?
              I love this "Blame the Nearest Republican" logic.

              Budget problems from 2001-2009? Blame Bush!
              Budget problems from 2010-2013? Blame Congressional Rethugs!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                I love this "Blame the Nearest Republican" logic.

                Budget problems from 2001-2009? Blame Bush!
                Budget problems from 2010-2013? Blame Congressional Rethugs!
                well, if the shoe fits, wear it.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
                  None. It was in 2006 when the Democrats took control of congress that deficit spending increased. By 2008 it had increased 400 percent to 1.2 Trillion.
                  This is a really dumb, dumb thing to say. The direct cause of >1T deficits was the recession (including automatic, mandatory social safety net spending as well as the first wave of baby boomers retiring, and large reductions in revenue).

                  Pull your head out of your ass GB.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                    I love this "Blame the Nearest Republican" logic.

                    Budget problems from 2001-2009? Blame Bush!
                    Budget problems from 2010-2013? Blame Congressional Rethugs!
                    Or, posters like yourself when things contradict your perception - you call it bunk but can't back it up and make hypocritical statements.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by alkemical View Post
                      Or, posters like yourself when things contradict your perception - you call it bunk but can't back it up and make hypocritical statements.
                      Dude, $4k a ludicrous number on its face. Just juxtapose the $250 on defense vs $4,000 for "corporate subsidies"

                      Proportionally, since $4k is 16x $250, and we spend roughly $700 billion on defense.... you'd have to be saying that we give out something like $11 trillion in "corporate subsides"

                      That's laughable. Our entire national GDP isn't much larger than that. There's no sniff test (or laugh test) that could possibly pass.

                      When the bull**** is that easy to spot on the surface, there's no reason to dig any further.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                        Dude, $4k a ludicrous number on its face. Just juxtapose the $250 on defense vs $4,000 for "corporate subsidies"

                        Proportionally, since $4k is 16x $250, and we spend roughly $700 billion on defense.... you'd have to be saying that we give out something like $11 trillion in "corporate subsides"

                        That's laughable. Our entire national GDP isn't much larger than that. There's no sniff test (or laugh test) that could possibly pass.

                        When the bull**** is that easy to spot on the surface, there's no reason to dig any further.
                        You are full of logical fallacies. You don't fact check anything.

                        Go 'Murica!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by elsid13 View Post
                          And why do they have to? This is public government, not your household or your business. There is no real need to balance the books annually.
                          Sure there is. More debt=need to finance it=share of federal budget tied up in dead money i.e. paying interest will increase which is an inefficient use of money and needlessly will result in higher taxes.

                          Short term deficit not a huge issue.....long term SS and Medicare is the bigger issue due to demographic strains on funds. Really need to start cost shifting away from govt. Means testing, premium support/voucher, changing inflationary increases etc.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by SoCalBronco View Post
                            Sure there is. More debt=need to finance it=share of federal budget tied up in dead money i.e. paying interest will increase which is an inefficient use of money and needlessly will result in higher taxes.

                            Short term deficit not a huge issue.....long term SS and Medicare is the bigger issue due to demographic strains on funds. Really need to start cost shifting away from govt. Means testing, premium support/voucher, changing inflationary increases etc.
                            cutting benefits is not going to happen. and shouldn't happen.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              you can actually expand SS. remove the cap on which higher earners make,once someone reaches 120,000(somewhere around there) they no longer pay the 6.2 into SS. get rid of that cap and most issues with SS go away.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                First, we must address the false religion of a "pure" capitalism. Capitalism, like any other system devised by man, is inherently flawed. We have enough history to know that laissez faire capitalism leads to the kind of income disparities that lead to social upheaval. In other words, no society can sustain it for long, at least without resorting to a police state. This is the bush we keep beating around. We have an entrenched, ideologically based political wing that is fanatically wedded to the dogma of laissez faire capitalism, and the majority of them are the dupes of corporate sharks who are getting reamed by the economics. They are the equivalent of modern ghost dancers.

                                Look what happened within two years of the U.S. taking down Glass/Steagle? Now we have corporations laying off a third of their workforce, piling that work onto the shoulders of the two thirds left, reducing their wages, and then using the leftover money to buy back stocks and give themselves more money. Research? Zip. New equipment and building? Zip. This has become the basic workings of our economy.

                                If you explained it to a third grader, they'd think you were insane.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X