Reply With Quote
Yes, we're going to pay the piper. But even if the budget was back around the $2.3 tril or so it was before this latest bust, that's $7,667 per person or $30K for a family of four per year.
To heal our massively insolvent banks? For Stimulus 3.0 to allay the serious social pain coming down the pike?
I doubt it.
Yes, we're going to pay the piper. But even if the budget was back around the $2.3 tril or so it was before this latest bust, that's $7,667 per person or $30K for a family of four per year.
There's nothing wrong with switching political parties in order to get re-elected. Specter is just trying to hold onto the power he has as a senator.
You conveniently ignored it is also OK to run a deficit during war time. So tell me, why did president Clinton run deficits after the cold war was won?
So tall me, why are you complaining about deficit spending now?
Are you truly that uninformed? Clinton's greatest impact was balancing the budget and running a massive surplus toward the end of his term.
WC doesn't let facts get in the way of his ing and moaning...
Obama's budget, even making the rosiest possible economic assumptions, projects huge deficits ten years down the road.
One possibility is that he plans huge tax increases if and when the economy turns around in order to make up the difference. It may do well to convince oneself that these will just be on "the rich," but given the breadth of the shortfall, this is just wishful thinking. While the typical Republican application of the Laffer curve is, er, laughable (revenues are maximum at zero tax rates!), the basic concept is sound, and Obama probably doesn't have enough room to raise the necessary revenue before he's chasing vanishing marginal income.
Another possibility is that he's looked at the numbers, realizes there is no hope, the country is doomed, and has decided we just should all just go on a bender and get what we can before our creditors wise up.
I think the latter is probably correct. Really. It's all moot. Whatever hope of fixing our fiscal situation we had was extinguished in the previous administration and all Obama is doing is administering palliative care.
It is all in the democrats court now.
For awhile I've thought this was deliberate. GWB meant to drive New Deal and Great Society over the cliff.
What I wonder is whether he knew he'd be taking the rest of us over the cliff too.
Should I feel bad about wanting to see Grover Norquist impaled?For awhile I've thought this was deliberate. GWB meant to drive New Deal and Great Society over the cliff.
What I wonder is whether he knew he'd be taking the rest of us over the cliff too.
Wanting it done seems reasonable and proportionate to me; wanting to see it, a bit macabre. But there's no accounting for taste.
Because the bailouts are not the answer and the package they made has new social spending programs that will not stop.
Did you not know that?
He didn't balance the budget, the economy made things good for his administration. The Y2K scare and technological developments in CMP made some big differences like.
Funny how things dropped after the the Y2K scare was over.
He was lucky, and had a republican congress.
That is fact!
This democrat congress and democrat president may spend us into oblivion.
We've been here before folks.
Jimmy Carter had a 61 seat Senate and look what he did with it. Brought on the Reagan Revolution. Obama is a black Jimmy Carter...
Exciting times.
What is the answer?
The question is, will he be a better or worse president than president carter?
I think worse! He will put us into double digit inflation like president Carter and those democrats did for sure.
another brave admission.
So, if it was a democrat President, chalk it up to luck?
Please.
The 'starve the beast' strategy. I'd believe it, if I didn't see him give Big Pharma what they wanted with the Medicare prescription drugs program. If I had to guess, Rove decided that the electorate didn't care about fiscal responsibility anymore and the true dividing line in American politics was cultural, with social conservatism as the majority view. Yes, the various congressional scandals and angst over the Iraq invasion did in the GOP in 2006. 2008 was interesting because we did see a 25% drop in the Dow about a month before the election, with reports of a severe recession/depression on its way. How many in bent parties are going to survive that (even before considering the unpopularity of the in bent administration), especially a GOP one? Once the economy stabilizes and the equity markets are back on the upswing, we can get back to the things that really matter, such as arguing about gays, guns, and abortion. I have a feeling that this is going to be the argument made by social conservatives in the GOP heading into the 2010 midterm federal election.
Well the GOP continues to implode. Republicans feud over Specter
Doesn't sound any different from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow'...archy_of_needs At the bottom are the basics to survive, food, shelter, etc etc. As you go up, it leads to social and emotional needs. Our country as a whole is no different I think. Once we've got the big stuff handled relatively well, we move up the ladder to less important issues. When the basic issues come to play, the lesser social issues get pushed aside temporarily.
Do you know who Newt is, Mr. Informed?
Funny how Congress went along with the spending for the last two years and Obama voted for the EVIL GWB ulus plan.
They are all the ing same. Fiscal conservatism is a god damned pipe dream. This country is ed.
Lawyers and Career politicians have a blank check courtesy of the biggest empire in the history of this planet. How can we not be ed
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions