Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After doing nothing during his first two years in office to deal with the debt tsunami that's clearly visible on the horizon and heading our way, President Obama delivered a 2012 budget plan that, as Investor's Business Daily accurately editorialized, "proposed spending $252 billion more in 2012 than the feds spent in 2010 -- at the height of the stimulus spending spree."
Longer run, worse than doing nothing, Obama's projected budgets over the next decade add enough trillions in red ink to double the size of the incoming tsunami.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 05-03-2011 at 09:37 AM..
After doing nothing during his first two years in office to deal with the debt tsunami...
My memory isn't so bad that I can't remember December, when Obama tried to let the Bush tax-cuts expire (the Bush tax-cuts are the largest cause of the debt [see below]) and the Republicans held the unemployed hostage. Letting the Bush tax-cuts expire would go a long way towards long-term debt sanity.
However, why has the conversation shifted from high unemployment to a sudden urgency on debt? Cutting the deficit in a recession is counter-productive and is exactly the policy that Hoover advocated prior to the depression. When government can borrow at close to 0%, deficit spending is the correct policy during a recession.
The focus should be on putting the unemployed back to work and the deficit will diminish on its own as the primary portion of recent deficits are caused by the economic downturn.
Your first reply doesn't even speak to that budget offering but it may well cover up what you intended to talk about. Deflection is one of old Saul's main suggestions, though.
My memory isn't so bad that I can't remember December, when Obama tried to let the Bush tax-cuts expire (the Bush tax-cuts are the largest cause of the debt [see below]) and the Republicans held the unemployed hostage. Letting the Bush tax-cuts expire would go a long way towards long-term debt sanity.
However, why has the conversation shifted from high unemployment to a sudden urgency on debt? Cutting the deficit in a recession is counter-productive and is exactly the policy that Hoover advocated prior to the depression. When government can borrow at close to 0%, deficit spending is the correct policy during a recession.
The focus should be on putting the unemployed back to work and the deficit will diminish on its own as the primary portion of recent deficits are caused by the economic downturn.
I see, posts that disagree with the narrative get deleted.
Someone can post, "Tax cuts don't create debt. SPENDING creates debt." But if I counter that post, my response get's deleted but not "Tax cuts don't create debt. SPENDING creates debt."
So Obama was to reinstate the Clinton tax increases.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
