Federal Deficit to soar to 407 Billion

#26
#26
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I'm not an expert in economics, but when Clinton left office didn't the economy start to tank?? I mean the technology boom had leveled off and actually subsided in many areas. Clinton takes credit for a booming economy that was going to boom with whoever was in there.
Click to expand...

You can blame that on the contracts he made with foreign countries. See, Clinton allowed foreign countries to buy vital infrastructure and then made them promise not to pack the company up and leave the country while he was president. Once out of office they took the companies and jobs and left.

While, some will argue America is greater than a bunch of companies being sent overseas it was an economic need for whole regions of the country. Once they faltered it drug down other sectors and regions. Its also one of the reasons you see the gap widening between the rich and the poor.
 
#27
#27
oklavol said:
No one has ever spent more money then the current administration. But keep voting Republican. What's the defintion of insanity, keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Unless your a Republican, then its a good idea.
Click to expand...

What world do you live in?

Either party is guilty of this and the W administration is a joke and every one knows it.

To pretend this is limited to republicans is trite.

Have a good day police hater!

:)

:hi:
 
#28
#28
oklavol said:
Bush spends money like there's no tomorrow; invades Iraq, prescription drug plan for seniors, money to fight aids in Africa, etc he's worse then any President we've ever had in this respect.

Clinton was never this bad. The size of the govt actually shrunk under Clinton, it's soared under Bush. Bush is the worse President in our lifetime. Everyone else is a distant second. He's left the next president a bigger mess then he inherited and did nothing to address the long term problems the country faces, but instead by his irresponsible spending made them worse.
Click to expand...

In your mind????????

How old are you?????
 
#29
#29
VolDad said:
To what extent do you blame the Democratic controlled House and Senate?
Click to expand...

How long has Bush been President? How long have the Democrats controlled the house and Senate? How many of these problems simply arose after 2007 when he's been in office since January of 2001?
 
#30
#30
615 Vol said:
How long has Bush been President? How long have the Democrats controlled the house and Senate? How many of these problems simply arose after 2007 when he's been in office since January of 2001?
Click to expand...

Yet their approval rating is less than the Presidents.
 
#31
#31
615 Vol said:
How long has Bush been President? How long have the Democrats controlled the house and Senate? How many of these problems simply arose after 2007 when he's been in office since January of 2001?
Click to expand...

If you look at the economic indicators, the trouble correlates to the switch in Congressional leadership.

However, correlation is not causation and the root of the problems stretch back through both the Bush and Clinton administrations.
 
#32
#32
615 Vol said:
How long has Bush been President? How long have the Democrats controlled the house and Senate? How many of these problems simply arose after 2007 when he's been in office since January of 2001?
Click to expand...

No sense trying to explain any thing...... republicans in congress blew it........
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
Your link doesn't work. The assessment from TPC I saw shows McCain's plan bringing in less revenue but did not address spending. Clearly, Obama is advocating much more spending than McCain.
Click to expand...

Apologies.

Here's another:

How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008

"The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion."

I fixed my post in the other thread to show the difference being that McCain's plan would swell the debt by $1.2 trillion more than Obama's. Both will swell - under McCain it will swell more.
 
#35
#35
volinbham said:
If you look at the economic indicators, the trouble correlates to the switch in Congressional leadership.
Click to expand...

If you look at the falling dollar, I think you will find it corresponds to the time frame the U.S. invaded Iraq.
 
#36
#36
TennNC said:
Apologies.

Here's another:

How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008

"The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion."

I fixed my post in the other thread to show the difference being that McCain's plan would swell the debt by $1.2 trillion more than Obama's. Both will swell - under McCain it will swell more.
Click to expand...

A key issue with these is the economic growth assumption and spending plans. I can't find where the TPC does the economic growth impact of each candidate and assume they are using the same view on economic growth for each.
 
#37
#37
volinbham said:
The surpluses were a result of the tech swing - revenues rose so fast, Congress couldn't spend the surplus.
Click to expand...

Congress couldn't spend the surpluses? This ain't Brewster's Millions. They could spend every dime if they were allowed to. Things were so good, in fact, that legislators actually agreed it was in the country's best interests to start to use what we need and no more. What a concept!

And then the drunken/sobered-up sailor moved in.

Also, remind me where one of the major reasons for that tech swing originated. No, not the punching bag Algore. But I believe it was some organization funded by evil tax dollars. Help me out...
 
#38
#38
oklavol said:
If you look at the falling dollar, I think you will find it corresponds to the time frame the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

One indicator - take a look at employment, mortgage issues, oil prices, inflation, economic growth, etc. and they track with the change in leadership.

Let me repeat - I'm not saying they are the cause but those in charge often bear the blame for conditions at the time.
 
#39
#39
volinbham said:
If you look at the economic indicators, the trouble correlates to the switch in Congressional leadership.

However, correlation is not causation and the root of the problems stretch back through both the Bush and Clinton administrations.
Click to expand...

I think the first point is 100% irrelevant. We were headed toward this hole long before Pelosi and co. had any influence.

Bush has spent MORE than any president. And Congress (both parties) let him get away with it - they gave him his war, he gave them their pork. Everyone was content. And the country has suffered. Period. End of sentence.
 
#40
#40
TennNC said:
Congress couldn't spend the surpluses? This ain't Brewster's Millions. They could spend every dime if they were allowed to. Things were so good, in fact, that legislators actually agreed it was in the country's best interests to start to use what we need and no more. What a concept!

And then the drunken/sobered-up sailor moved in.

Also, remind me where one of the major reasons for that tech swing originated. No, not the punching bag Algore. But I believe it was some organization funded by evil tax dollars. Help me out...
Click to expand...

Look at how long it takes Congress to pass major spending legislation or for a POTUS to enact a major initiative - they didn't have time.

Do you believe that Congress (of either party) wouldn't try to appropriate that surplus?

DARPA?
 
#41
#41
volinbham said:
One indicator - take a look at employment, mortgage issues, oil prices, inflation, economic growth, etc. and they track with the change in leadership.

Let me repeat - I'm not saying they are the cause but those in charge often bear the blame for conditions at the time.
Click to expand...

The highlighted doesn't have anything to do with leadership or the change thereof. It has to do with broke people buying homes.
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
A key issue with these is the economic growth assumption and spending plans. I can't find where the TPC does the economic growth impact of each candidate and assume they are using the same view on economic growth for each.
Click to expand...

Google "TPC + mccain + obama + debt"

it should be the 4th or so link down. A .pdf link.

Some nice bedtime reading.
 
#43
#43
TennNC said:
I think the first point is 100% irrelevant. We were headed toward this hole long before Pelosi and co. had any influence.

Bush has spent MORE than any president. And Congress (both parties) let him get away with it - they gave him his war, he gave them their pork. Everyone was content. And the country has suffered. Period. End of sentence.
Click to expand...

Good to see it's all black and white for you. :p

Let's not forget the role of the Fed in all this.
 
#44
#44
TennNC said:
I think the first point is 100% irrelevant. We were headed toward this hole long before Pelosi and co. had any influence.

Bush has spent MORE than any president. And Congress (both parties) let him get away with it - they gave him his war, he gave them their pork. Everyone was content. And the country has suffered. Period. End of sentence.
Click to expand...

I hate it when I agree with you..............

:birgits_giggle:
 
#45
#45
g8terh8ter_eric said:
The highlighted doesn't have anything to do with leadership or the change thereof. It has to do with broke people being suckered into thinking it was best for them to buy homes at absurdly low rates that were going to inflate faster than they could breathe, falsely inflating the economic situation and causing the massive POP! we're hearing and feeling right now.
Click to expand...

that's how I see it.
 
#48
#48
TennNC said:
Google "TPC + mccain + obama + debt"

it should be the 4th or so link down. A .pdf link.

Some nice bedtime reading.
Click to expand...

I read that this morning and this is all I could find

​
Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see how they project growth based on the proposed policies.
 
#49
#49
TennNC said:
that's how I see it.
Click to expand...

It has more to do with those broke people and sub-prime mortgages. Most people during that time got mortgages with balloons. The stupid broke people are more to blame than the mortgage companies anyways. Remember the American dream for most is, get into debt up to your eyeballs and then when you can't pay blame everyone else for your misfortune other than to blame the person responsible, yourself.
 
#50
#50
All I know is, the b@$tards who call themselves politicians need to get real jobs and quit spending our money at the drop of a hat.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top