Record $1 TRILLION deficit, just warming up for next year...

[Stizzel]

It's easy to throw stone now that someone has done something to fix the economy. I just hope your don't forget that Obama didn't get us into this mess.

Incidentally, keep in mind that every time a new business starts off, it takes a chance. The bigger the business, the greater the risk.

'someone' has been 'fixing' the economy the better part of a century. And 'they' suck at it.

[Morbid_Mind]

Even knowing that, the monkeys running my city want to build a tunnel? Where do these leaders come from...simian DNA?

Reported for racism

[JMath]

(a) I've always thought it a bit absurd that one apparently can't attack bad decisions today unless they're on record as attacking previous bad decisions - even when today's actions are on a scale far larger than we've ever seen in the past.

(b) To answer your question: Yes, I was wildly opposed to the Spring 2008 Stimulus, the Fall 2008 Bailouts, and now the Spring 2009 Stimulus. Along with all the other fiscal irresponsibility we've seen over the past decade from Republicans AND Democrats.

Compiled for your convenient review right here:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post281584471

I assume this means I'm now authorized to question and complain about outrageous new debt incurred by the current administration?

I was not attacking you or anything. I was seriously just wondering.

A] I think that when a person argues that individual X (Obama in this case) should have known better based off a number of similar cases that previously failed (stimulus packages in this case) that they should be even across the board with the issue. If a Republican were to become the President next and say "Here is a new stimulus package" and the guy that my previous post was directed to (can't remember his username) says it is a fantastic idea, than I would definitely say that he was basing this current argument off the fact that he simply does not support Obama and not the fact that these stimulus packages are dumb.

B] All you had to say was yes you were against it to make me believe you. I'm glad that you do not blindly support one party like many people do. (Democrats and Republican both)

I am not an "Obamabot" by any means. He is a politician... I don't have much faith in any of them. My question was simply an objective question. I wanted to know if people in here are just bashing Obama, or if they are actually concerned about the issue.

[nutsy54]

so we should have just let it steadily decline instead of at least try something yes?

do nothing policy... great.

The economy constantly goes up and down. Government trying to "help" or "fix it" generally only succeeds in making things worse.

And, yes - "Do nothing" would have been far better then adding massive new debt to prop up failed businesses, then plowing through even more debt to pour money into political Thank You projects and knee-jerk reactionary "gotta do something now!" programs.

[Kane_89]

The economy constantly goes up and down. Government trying to "help" or "fix it" generally only succeeds in making things worse.

And, yes - "Do nothing" would have been far better then adding massive new debt to prop up failed businesses, then plowing through even more debt to pour money into political Thank You projects and knee-jerk reactionary "gotta do something now!" programs.

lol im sorry, but in these economic times..

"Do nothing and let everything fail" does not sound bright at all.

let everything fail and then what?

[nutsy54]

lol im sorry, but in these economic times..

"Do nothing and let everything fail" does not sound bright at all.

let everything fail and then what?

What's the constant hysteria about "these economic times", as if companies and the economy have never been in trouble before? Business fail, employees find new jobs, people who are better at it succeed. It's always been happening, it always will happen.

Tell us... What's been the result of Government sticking it's nose into every aspect of our lives, while propping up failures, and selling our children into endless debt? The unemployment rate has already gone well beyond the "worst case scenario" stated by the White House if we had done nothing - which means by their own understanding, the actions of Congress and President Obama have only served to make things worse.

[Kane_89]

What's the constant hysteria about "these economic times", as if companies and the economy have never been in trouble before? Business fail, employees find new jobs, people who are better at it succeed. It's always been happening, it always will happen.

Tell us... What's been the result of Government sticking it's nose into every aspect of our lives, while propping up failures, and selling our children into endless debt? The unemployment rate has already gone well beyond the "worst case scenario" stated by the White House if we had done nothing - which means by their own understanding, the actions of Congress and President Obama have only served to make things worse.

Most of America doesnt think like that.

trust me if McCain or Obama wouldve said, "the answer to this economic crisis is to just sit back, do nothing, and let things fail" neither of them would make it past the primaries and each candidate would be irrelevant.

ask any average American and they would say that doing something is better than doing nothing.

how long would the economy recover with the "do nothing" approach?

[Fernando12]

how long would the economy recover with the "do nothing" approach?

A lot longer than with the "let's spend ludicrous amounts of money to bail out failing businesses so they can fail again and make the largest stimulus package ever even though there has never been a successful stimulus package in history" approach.

[US_Ranger]

Most of America doesnt think like that.

trust me if McCain or Obama wouldve said, "the answer to this economic crisis is to just sit back, do nothing, and let things fail" neither of them would make it past the primaries and each candidate would be irrelevant.

ask any average American and they would say that doing something is better than doing nothing.

how long would the economy recover with the "do nothing" approach?

In case you weren't paying attention, a majority of Americans were against the bailouts.......

[KRANE]

A lot longer than with the "let's spend ludicrous amounts of money to bail out failing businesses so they can fail again and make the largest stimulus package ever even though there has never been a successful stimulus package in history" approach.

The question is what do you do with the millions left without jobs in the mean time? Just step over them?

[Fernando12]

The question is what do you do with the millions left without jobs in the mean time? Just step over them?

You mean the millions of jobs that were lost that stimulus was supposed to protect? Or the million extra on top of that?

[Boxman]

nutsy54 and others: if you are not willing to support a minimum and immediate 25% cut to our military budget, you have no right whatsoever to criticize deficits. In applying this sort of one-sided criticism you show yourselves to be:

1) Morons

OR

2) Hypocrites

I am so ****ing sick and tired of all this chicken-little talk of deficits where the military budget is exempted from the same ruthless standards of scrutiny that other programs like Medicare and Social Security face. This is especially galling considering how much more wasteful defense spending is by comparison, and how little positive effect it has. You people balk at spending $1 trillion over 10 years to save the lives of millions of Americans, but have no problem spending $10 trillion over 10 years on our military.

[KRANE]

You mean the millions of jobs that were lost that stimulus was supposed to protect? Or the million extra on top of that?

Have you seen any soup lines or kids sleeping in the streets yet?

[nutsy54]

nutsy54 and others: if you are not willing to support a minimum and immediate 25% cut to our military budget, you have no right whatsoever to criticize deficits.

Where does that random and baseless percentage come from?

Here's a thought: Defense is actually defined in the Constitution as a role of the Federal government.

Holding everyone's hand through every stage of their lives is not. Propping up failed companies is not. Government jamming its nose and fingers into every aspect of our private lives is not.

Besides, the issue here is his TOTAL, massive, endless debt spending. We could completely eliminate the entire Dept of Defense budget for 2010 - and there would still be a $1.1 TRILLION deficit based on the President's proposal.

Sorry, but military spending isn't the magical scapegoat you want to pretend it is.

[nutsy54]

Have you seen any soup lines or kids sleeping in the streets yet?

But... I though this was "the worst economic crisis since the Depression!", one which would destroy our country if left untouched. Yet after touching it, the unemployment rate - Obama's own gauge of success - is now well above the "crisis" level he predicted if nothing had been done.

[Fernando12]

Have you seen any soup lines or kids sleeping in the streets yet?

And....? You are saying the stimulus helped unemployment when it clearly hasn't, regardless of if more people are not sleeping in the streets.

[nutsy54]

I am so ****ing sick and tired of all this chicken-little talk of deficits where the military budget is exempted from the same ruthless standards of scrutiny that other programs like Medicare and Social Security face.

By the way - when have I (or anyone else here) ever said that the military budget is exempted from scrutiny?

Maybe you could start here: The wars that Obama is continuing, and expanding... As I recall, ending this wars and "bringing our troops home" was supposed to magically pay for every other massive program he's proposed. Instead, more troops (and more money) have been headed into combat ever since he took office.

PS: In another thread, you'll see that I support the President's intent to cancel a costly fighter program.

[Stizzel]

Have you seen any soup lines or kids sleeping in the streets yet?

Thats like saying to someone driving 100 mph into a wall "Thats cool brah, we havn't crashed yet"

[Kane_89]

By the way - when have I (or anyone else here) ever said that the military budget is exempted from scrutiny?

Maybe you could start here: The wars that Obama is continuing, and expanding... As I recall, ending this wars and "bringing our troops home" was supposed to magically pay for every other massive program he's proposed. Instead, more troops (and more money) have been headed into combat ever since he took office.

PS: In another thread, you'll see that I support the President's intent to cancel a costly fighter program.

dont wanna sound like an obamabot but...

He said he was gonna send more troops into Afghanistan during the campaign.

[Fernando12]

Thats like saying to someone driving 100 mph into a wall "Thats cool brah, we havn't crashed yet"

I lol'd

[nutsy54]

dont wanna sound like an obamabot but...

He said he was gonna send more troops into Afghanistan during the campaign.

And he also said he'd "begin immediate withdrawal from Iraq, with all troops gone in 16 months". And all those dollars saved would thus pay for all his endless new spending promises.

By that promise: 1/3 of the troops should be out of Iraq by now
The actual change: 0
The current schedule: Exactly as negotiated by the Bush administration

As for Afghanistan: The Haters say they are opposed to wasting money on wars and the military. Obama's actions to increase wars, and their costs, should make them absolutely irate.

[Stizzel]

dont wanna sound like an obamabot but...

He said he was gonna send more troops into Afghanistan during the campaign.

Yes, he did. But still O-bots were telling us that all of his social programs would be paid for by money diverted from military spending in the middle east. If this seems a little silly to you, I have to agree. Could we say we have a president elected on silliness?

Remember, he was also promising an early withdrawal from Iraq.

[Kane_89]

And he also said he'd "begin immediate withdrawal from Iraq, with all troops gone in 16 months". And all those dollars saved would thus pay for all he endless new spending promises.

By that promise: 1/3 of the troops should be out of Iraq by now
The actual change: 0
The current schedule: Exactly as negotiated by the Bush administration

As for Afghanistan: The Haters say they are opposed to wasting money on wars and the military. Obama's actions to increase wars, and their costs, should make them absolutely irate.

he said that to get elected lol.

lol Obama's smart though, most of America didnt even now Bush had a withdrawal plan.
now that the troops are actually leaving they think that its his own plan.

and the only people who are irate are the neocons who still wanna stay in Iraq.

[Boxman]

By the way - when have I (or anyone else here) ever said that the military budget is exempted from scrutiny?

Um... you righties do this all the time. I could find hundreds of such posts easily. Most of the people bashing universal healthcare don't even know how big the US "defense" budget is, or how vastly oversized our military is compared to the rest of the world.

In fact, most right-wing dip****s actually think the US military is too small & underfunded... these people are so uninformed.

Maybe you could start here: The wars that Obama is continuing, and expanding... As I recall, ending this wars and "bringing our troops home" was supposed to magically pay for every other massive program he's proposed. Instead, more troops (and more money) have been headed into combat ever since he took office.

Actually, Obama had vowed to increase the Afghan mission from the very start of his campaign. And he's winding down the Iraq mission as planned. In any case, these wars, and the US forces taking part in them, actually represent only a small portion of the US defense budget.

What most people don't realize is the portion of our armed forces which actually take part in today's wars only account for about 25% of our total military spending. The other 75% of the US military budget is comprised of vast fleets of aircraft carriers, submarines, air-superiority fighters, and other Cold-War Era forces that cannot be justified by any conceivable threat that exists in the real world. 75% of our military budget is essentially corporate welfare for the defense industry, which employs a very small # of people for the amount of $$ we throw at it.

Point being we could easily cut the military budget by 25-50% with no risk to our national security, giving us an extra $150-$300 billion dollars per year, which could be applied to the deficit & universal healthcare.

PS: In another thread, you'll see that I support the President's intent to cancel a costly fighter program.

I commend you for being less a right-wing drone than most of your peers, but we need to be thinking much bigger. The US military is so vastly oversized and overfunded for what it needs to do, that we need to be looking at more than just a few programs.

People underestimate the amount of money that's been poured into our military over the years, and what an impact this has had on the national debt. It's the one area of spending that achieves virtually no positive return whatsoever, as it tends to make us less safe and employs very small #'s of people for the amount spent (as compared to say, road and highway projects or healthcare spending).

I find it amazing how righties balk at spending $1 trillion over 10 years for universal healthcare, an expenditure that would save millions of American lives and improve the quality of life for many millions more. These same people had no problem with Bush spending $10 trillion over 8 years on expanding the military and waging foreign wars, the most expensive of which (Iraq) was totally unneccesary.

It's a very telling glimpse into the right-wing mindset: spending money to kill people is ok, spending money to save them is not.

[KRANE]

And he also said he'd "begin immediate withdrawal from Iraq, with all troops gone in 16 months". And all those dollars saved would thus pay for all his endless new spending promises.

By that promise: 1/3 of the troops should be out of Iraq by now
The actual change: 0
The current schedule: Exactly as negotiated by the Bush administration

As for Afghanistan: The Haters say they are opposed to wasting money on wars and the military. Obama's actions to increase wars, and their costs, should make them absolutely irate.

Really you ought to know better. Military leader--at all levels--frequently make promises they can't always keep; and orders get countermanded and withdrawn all the time. Even so, would you challenge the orders of your CO in such a manner?
Even though the president may not have a direct superior, he still has to answer to congress, and to a less extent, a responsibility to take the advice of his generals.

In any event, whenever there's something as complex and as difficult to gauge as a military engagement one shouldn't expect precise predictions. Things change daily and we should expect that leaders will have to adapt with them. Nevertheless, if the president just pulled everyone out without first establishing stability in the region, then the deaths of all those brave soldiers would have been for nothing. In this case, we have a commitment and a responsibility to finish what we started.

[US_Ranger]

Really you ought to know better. Military leader--at all levels--frequently make promises they can't always keep; and orders get countermanded and withdrawn all the time. Even so, would you challenge the orders of your CO in such a manner?
Even though the president may not have a direct superior, he still has to answer to congress, and to a less extent, a responsibility to take the advice of his generals.

In any event, whenever there's something as complex and as difficult to gauge as a military engagement one shouldn't expect precise predictions. Things change daily and we should expect that leaders will have to adapt with them. Nevertheless, if the president just pulled everyone out without first establishing stability in the region, then the deaths of all those brave soldiers would have been for nothing. In this case, we have a commitment and a responsibility to finish what we started.

Lawl.

Bush (stay the course) = evil leader who hates children

Obama (stay the course) = smart man who listens to advice from others



I love this ****.

[Morbid_Mind]

It's a two year plan my friend, not the waving of a magic wand.

Maybe if you're going to regurgitate Obama talking points you should get your ducks in a row

[nutsy54]

It's a two year plan my friend, not the waving of a magic wand.

How's that "plan" working out? Another massive deficit for 2010, essentially the same as our previous record from 2009, with no end in sight...

Meanwhile, Unemployment has been at/above 9.4% for 17 months (also with no end in sight)...

What will the 2011 budget hold? Oh, that's right - one month into the 2011 fiscal year, and the Federal Government still doesn't even have a budget! Truly awesome leadership from Congress and the White House, huh?

CBO estimates that the federal budget deficit was slightly less than $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2010 and $125 billion less than the shortfall recorded in 2009. The 2010 deficit was equal to 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, down from 10.0 percent in 2009 (based on the most current estimate of GDP). The 2010 deficit was the second-highest shortfall—and 2009 the highest—since 1945, relative to the size of the economy.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11936



Debt when Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006, and Pelosi promised "PAYGO" spending with no new deficits:
$8.5 Trillion
Debt at Inauguration, 2009: $10.6 Trillion
Debt Today: $13.6 Trillion

[jsVR-4]

Time to throw everyone out of office.

Time to get a president that wants term limits.

Time to downsize the government. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/




We've got two choices: 1)depression or 2) collapse.



But no one is going to run on that platform. Time to cut cut cut. That's what households are doing.