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.
More great news about a benefit to this country from President Obama's presidency.
Remember, Republican Bush was given a SURPLUS by Democrat Clinton and turned it into a RECORD DEFICIT. Had our great President Obama not been obstructed by Republicans in Congress, we likely would be enjoying another surplus.
Promise #1: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”
Promise #2: “That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.”
Promise #3: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”
Promise #4: “For the 85 and 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing’s already happened. And their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”
Promise #5: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”
Promise #6: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.”
Promise #7: “Whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.”
Promise #8: “I will protect Medicare.”
Promise #9: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American.”
Promise #10: “So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.”
I suggest that before people make claims about numbers they actually look at the numbers.
It cannot be "credibly argued." For much of the Bush Admin, the House, Senate and White House was controlled by the GOP. Note, the BIG drop in spending during the years the GOP controlled the entire government? Me neither.
I said during PRESIDENT OBAMA'S first two years the Democrats controlled the House and Senate and it could be argued they still do now. I suggest people read before answering a post.
Amazes me how many on the left DO NOT know this......they can point out a misspelled/used word though. Is school not teaching this or only bookkeepers know this?
Public education in this country sucks. I don't think they even teach basic accounting or how to balance a checkbook. No wonder people actually believe we are going to be able to absorb nearly twenty million without breaking a sweat.
Thanks for this. I agree completely- if there were a surplus, then the debt would not increase. That is, if the "surplus" were an actual surplus and not a "surplus" according to the spin masters.
Also, I'm just so sick of hearing how we need to pat presidents on the back when they reduce a deficit. Any year with even a $1 deficit is a year in which the government spent more money than it earned in taxes. Obama's goal to reduce the deficit over a 10 year period is amazing for how brazen the claim is- translated, he is saying that in the next 10 years, there will never be a point where the government spends the same or less than it receives in revenue.
This is just UNSUSTAINABLE policy. I'm not blaming Obama- I'm blaming every president whose expenditures exceeded their revenues (yes, including Clinton and both Bush boys). It's getting to the point where we need huge taxes just to pay the interest on our debt, let alone current programs. Just disgusting.
Whether you think the answer lies in raising taxes or decreasing spending, both sides of the aisle should agree that America has a debt problem.
Good analogy, but to make it more correct, it wouldn't be you guys tightening your belts. It would be the Republicans taking away one of your credit cards while you stomped your feet and whined.
Then a couple of years later, you crow about how you "cut the deficit" while singling handedly increasing the debt more than every other president combined. Snort
Excellent mythology...
The best analogy would be hucksters selling life preservers made of bricks before the flood ....which was caused from the water displacement from life preservers sinking since they are made of bricks. ( "a house is the best investment. Better buy one now before it goes up").
People were buying Arks, not perceived luxuries. The housing boom happened right after the stock market bubble and no one was thinking in 2003 the good times were rolling. Only by 2005 did people begin to think of housing as gravy.
In this case a pig in a brick house didn't even have a stick to float on.
During this time people were borrowing money, and lots of it. All this circulating money drove up prices, because more money in circulation does that sort of thing. However unlike a gold mine, this money has to be paid back which was the very flood the sunk all the brick houses.
This of course sets off all the automatic stabilizers in the US budget because unless deficits increase one way another, not enough money flows in the economy and a depression occurs. Because after all all money flowing in the economy is someone's debt. Pick one:
private debt
government debt
depression
negative savings rate.
And the real knee slapper here is automatic stabilizer by definition has nothing to do with the clowns in office, all while their loyal stooges bicker about which idiot in office did what.
If I were a banker, I'd be peeing in my pants, squealing in laughter. The volatility they create rings their cash registers. There is no such thing as a household budget anymore than you or me driving in straight lines on a map means the earth isn't round. The government in a credit monetary system, also selling government guaranteed savings instruments must perpetually be in debt.
I am on the left and I know this. I also think that the original poster knew it too.
I will assume you & the OP know President Obama is referring to our yearly deficits, not the sum total of our debt, which is growing at an astonishing pace.
President Obama said, "My goal is not chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance."
How does one do this? My bookkeeper makes me find the .01, if it is not balancing.
You probably know that each year's deficit is added to the debt. However, did you also know that the amount added to the debt each year is more than the deficit?
I also note the hypocrisy. When debt was really expanding beyond GDP under Bush, the GOP members were silent. Now, that Obama is president and spending is flat, the deficit hawks circle for prey. The debt mainly rose during the great recession because revenue sharply fell and automatic safety net programs kicked in. End of story. It wasn't Obama going on a spending spree.
I think most people did complain, but due to being at war, it was a consideration for spending. President Obama has handed out a lot of foreign aid, thanks to the American taxpayer! He is sending rebels and who knows who else weapons every other month.
President Bush is next, racking up $3.294 trillion over two terms. He responded to the attacks on 9/11 with the War on Terror, driving total military spending to at least $600 billion a year. The Bush tax cuts, also known as EGTRRA and JGTRRA, cut taxes to address the 2001 recession. Unfortunately, the cuts did not sunset when the recession was over, adding to the housing boom and depleting revenues during the 2008 recession.
Quote:
On misspelled words, I see lots of that here from conservatives too. I tend to ignore them. These are forum posts, not thesis'.
I wasn't saying who used them. I myself tend to type faster than I think and hit send before proofing. I am not into pointing out simple errors, but a few on here ( mostly you lefties) enjoy pointing out every damn error people do, it is annoying as all hell!
Difficult to believe anyone still has the nads to defend this current president.
Why? I still wake up and put my pants on one leg at a time and still receive my mail in a timely manner. Not sure what's happening up there in North Austin, but South Austin hasn't become radically different in the last 8 years.... aside from the traffic.
Good analogy, but to make it more correct, it wouldn't be you guys tightening your belts. It would be the Republicans taking away one of your credit cards while you stomped your feet and whined.
Then a couple of years later, you crow about how you "cut the deficit" while singling handedly increasing the debt more than every other president combined. Snort
If your theory, such as it is, is that Republicans are much more fiscally prudent, why did spending skyrocket about 11 years ago when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House? In fact, earmarks were the highest in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
It's simple.
My wife and I have enjoyd a $50,000 INCOME over the past three yaes
In 2012 we spent $120,000 to live putting $70,000 on our 24% Chase credit card giving us a $70,000 deficit.
In 2013 we tightened our belts and spent $115,000 putting $65,000 on our 24% Chase credit card.
In 2014 we really, really tightened our belts spendin only $112,000 putting only $62,000 on our Chase credit card.
We had great victory in that we reduced pur deficit in each of the three years.
What could possobly go wrong?
When you and your wife can print your own money, the analogy might be correct.
It's easy to knock down the bad analogy between governments and individuals, and the line that the government should act like an individual family or business, and cut back when times are tough. When you as an individual cut back, it has a minor effect on everyone else but you save a lot. The key point is realizing interdependence: your spending is my income, my spending is your income, and if we all try to slash spending at the same time the result is a depression. If government stops spending when the economy is weak, overall demand is slashed and people lose their jobs, who then respond by cutting back their spending, which causes a depression.
That said, real individuals and businesses don't behave the way the balanced-budget scolds claim. Businesses often borrow and spend when borrowing is cheap or they see high payoffs to investing; so do families.
Difficult to believe anyone still has the nads to defend this current president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Why? I still wake up and put my pants on one leg at a time and still receive my mail in a timely manner. Not sure what's happening up there in North Austin, but South Austin hasn't become radically different in the last 8 years.... aside from the traffic.
That's what happens with Obama Delusion Syndrome. Victims think that Obama caused the country "to be destroyed," when in fact, it is a far better country than it was on Jan. 19, 2009. There are far more people employed; the economy more than recovered; I see far more construction cranes building new buildings, consumer confidence is higher, etc. As Joe Biden said, "GM is alive and bin Laden is dead."
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.
Had our great President Obama not been obstructed by Republicans in Congress, we likely would be enjoying another surplus.
