Obama wants to halve budget deficit

#1
SavageOrangeJug

SavageOrangeJug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
3,569
Likes
6
#1
That lying SOB is spending money at an unprecedented rate. Who does he think he is fooling? Even the Obamasheep can't be that damn stupid.

Raise taxes on the wealthy? Wealthy = you have a job.

Restore fiscal discipline? What a joke that is coming from his mouth.

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.

Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2 percent of the overall economy now vs. 3 percent in four years.

"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."
Click to expand...

Official: Obama wants to halve budget deficit
 
#2
#2
its funny that the media is saying that obama's plan is to save jobs. i guess creating jobs is by the waste side
 
#3
#3
a liberal raising taxes?

Obama has yet to have an original thought.
 
#4
#4
I know the stimulus bill is spread out for years to come, but isn't that another trillion added to the till? I'm all for trying to get the budget balanced, but don't you have to stop buying things and slapping them on the ole visa before that starts? For the past eight years, we have lived on credit cards, and it looks like we have more of the same coming. It's just this time, they are repealing the tax cuts. It's like handing a person who keeps accidentally cutting themselves band aids and replacing the razor blade they hold with a chain saw, and after they are a bleeding pulp, taking away the band aids.
 
#6
#6
If there is an America left by that time, I'm not so sure. The problem is tho, is Obama is not the only guilty party. Washington is completely out of control, and people still keep voting the same clowns in year after year. I really wanted to start a campaign called "The Other Guy '08" for the '08 elections. I personally did that, when I could here in Tennessee. I voted against Alexander, and tried against Bart Gordon, unfortunately no one ran against him. I am also waiting with baited breath to vote against Corker. Hopefully just in the primary, but if I have to I will vote democrat to just get him out of office. As Americans I think the only way to send the message loud and clear is to just hold your nose and vote the other way to just send them home. I mean things could not get any worse than they are so what damage would it do?
 
#7
#7
Just remember how we all got to this point and pat yourself on the back for giving us 8 years of Bush.
 
#9
#9
BigPapaVol said:
damn near homeristic in silliness.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
I know it hurts to read such things, but so goes life. It's going to take a while to recover from all the damage done by the previous administration.
 
#10
#10
OWB said:
I know it hurts to read such things, but so goes life. It's going to take a while to recover from all the damage done by the previous administration.
Click to expand...

at the rate Obama is going, it'll take another 8-24 years to undo the damage he's planning to cause.

does the left not realize that raising taxes on people who actually employ other people is stupid?

if you want to raise taxes on the rich, leave their income alone, raise taxes on their trust funds and/or base it on their net worth. that way that fat bastard Ted Kennedy can actually feel some of the pain he's been causing real taxpayers.
 
#11
#11
OWB said:
I know it hurts to read such things, but so goes life. It's going to take a while to recover from all the damage done by the previous administration.
Click to expand...

The bulk of the damage had nothing to do with the previous administration. Explain to me how Bush crashed the financial system. I am all ears.
 
#12
#12
OWB said:
I know it hurts to read such things, but so goes life. It's going to take a while to recover from all the damage done by the previous administration.
Click to expand...

especially when the "W" deficit is doubled with one bill and another is already being drawn up
 
#13
#13
OWB said:
I know it hurts to read such things, but so goes life. It's going to take a while to recover from all the damage done by the previous administration.
Click to expand...

Doesn't hurt at all. Just says you buy into all of the garbage excuses the current head communist is giving. Being senseless enough to buy them is very bammeresque. I'm impressed that you have the capviry to remove yourself so far from reality.

I guess in lala land, you've seen someone taxed into properity or wealth generated via splitting it up? Walk me down that little dream.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#14
#14
BigPapaVol said:
I guess in lala land, you've seen someone taxed into properity or wealth generated via splitting it up? Walk me down that little dream.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I've read somewhere that there was on the order of $800 billion of new wealth created over the last 8 years....75% of which went to the top 1%. Would you consider that representative wealth generation?

And it would be nice to see where all these jobs are that were supposedly created by the tax breaks over the last 8 years.
 
#15
#15
rjd970 said:
I've read somewhere that there was on the order of $800 billion of new wealth created over the last 8 years....75% of which went to the top 1%. Would you consider that representative wealth generation?

And it would be nice to see where all these jobs are that were supposedly created by the tax breaks over the last 8 years.
Click to expand...

What is representative wealth generation? It's never that way. Wealth generation generally means jobs for more. Maybe you've noticed this recent wealth destruction has correlated very nicely with massive job loss. Odd that it works that way, huh?

As to your second, read my response again. Couldn't have been a better set of questions to make the stimulus package look stupid.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#16
#16
OWB said:
I know it hurts to read such things, but so goes life. It's going to take a while to recover from all the damage done by the previous administration.
Click to expand...

So you think having the new prez spend like the old prez is the road to recovery? Interesting.
 
#17
#17
BigPapaVol said:
What is representative wealth generation? It's never that way. Wealth generation generally means jobs for more. Maybe you've noticed this recent wealth destruction has correlated very nicely with massive job loss. Odd that it works that way, huh?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Wealth destruction? Are you serious? Destruction of what wealth? It was never real to begin with. That is the whole point. These top 1% earners have been given all the breaks the last 8 years and all we got was bubbles and psuedowealth. You're not seriously saying Obama's policies are now the reason we have increased unemployment are you? My question still stands, where are all these jobs after we have given the tax breaks to the top earners to manage wealth and create jobs for the rest of us? It seems to me they screwed the pooch with this one. The fact that those top 1% reaped 75% of the benefits and given where we are today, I would say they took the money and ran, instead of creating all these jobs you guys talk about.

I got an idea. If tax breaks really create jobs, why not have the jobs created first, then give the tax break afterward. I'm totally down with that. Because giving the tax breaks first hasn't seemed to work out the way you guys constantly harp on about.
 
#18
#18
rjd970 said:
Wealth destruction? Are you serious? Destruction of what wealth? It was never real to begin with. That is the whole point. These top 1% earners have been given all the breaks the last 8 years and all we got was bubbles and psuedowealth. You're not seriously saying Obama's policies are now the reason we have increased unemployment are you? My question still stands, where are all these jobs after we have given the tax breaks to the top earners to manage wealth and create jobs for the rest of us? It seems to me they screwed the pooch with this one. The fact that those top 1% reaped 75% of the benefits and given where we are today, I would say they took the money and ran, instead of creating all these jobs you guys talk about.

I got an idea. If tax breaks really create jobs, why not have the jobs created first, then give the tax break afterward. I'm totally down with that. Because giving the tax breaks first hasn't seemed to work out the way you guys constantly harp on about.
Click to expand...

You seem angry. Why do you live your life thinking it is someone else's responsibility to create something for you?
 
#19
#19
rjd970 said:
Wealth destruction? Are you serious? Destruction of what wealth? It was never real to begin with. That is the whole point. These top 1% earners have been given all the breaks the last 8 years and all we got was bubbles and psuedowealth. You're not seriously saying Obama's policies are now the reason we have increased unemployment are you? My question still stands, where are all these jobs after we have given the tax breaks to the top earners to manage wealth and create jobs for the rest of us? It seems to me they screwed the pooch with this one. The fact that those top 1% reaped 75% of the benefits and given where we are today, I would say they took the money and ran, instead of creating all these jobs you guys talk about.

I got an idea. If tax breaks really create jobs, why not have the jobs created first, then give the tax break afterward. I'm totally down with that. Because giving the tax breaks first hasn't seemed to work out the way you guys constantly harp on about.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the wealth destruction in the private sector equals lost jobs, just as wealth creation re-employed after 9-11 hammered us. Uneven distribution of wealth is a reality of the world. Pretendingvthat leveling that field will help is senseless. Every system on earth has apex predators and bottom feeders. That is the law of nature that we won't be doing away with, ever.

This isn't about tax breaks. This is about having to hammer our future economy over a lie of a spending program. I know you're dying to harp on tax breaks, but this is different. This is mandating future hikes over a garbage plan, in the name of an emergency.

Finally, you want to point at the government, but they aren't the culprit here. Markets are cyclical and some move wildly from a confluence of disparate and unexpected events. Bush's disastrous fiscal policies had nothing to do with it.

Bottom line: private wealth, even unevenly distributed, is the key to prosperity in this land. Even our poorest have seen their standard of living skyrocket compared to the rest of the world.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#20
#20
allvol123 said:
You seem angry. Why do you live your life thinking it is someone else's responsibility to create something for you?
Click to expand...

I am responding to the ridiculous notion that the wealthy 1% deserve a tax break because they create jobs. I just want to know, after the tax breaks of the last 8 years, where all these jobs are.

I don't want anything from anybody. I worked two jobs all through college, got a good job, and went and got my masters. I am self-made and I did it all my own. I have created the life myself that I enjoy and I don't need a thing from anybody.

You guys are the one's on here saying the wealthiest need a break to create something for the rest of us.
 
#22
#22
rjd970 said:
I am responding to the ridiculous notion that the wealthy 1% deserve a tax break because they create jobs. I just want to know, after the tax breaks of the last 8 years, where all these jobs are.

I don't want anything from anybody. I worked two jobs all through college, got a good job, and went and got my masters. I am self-made and I did it all my own. I have created the life myself that I enjoy and I don't need a thing from anybody.

You guys are the one's on here saying the wealthiest need a break to create something for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I don't think they need a tax break to create jobs. I think they need one because I don't know where someone thinks the government has the right to steal such large sums from them.

Where are all the jobs? If you are under 40 and live in this country you have not seen an economy that you should not have been able to make it in. If you did not make it, it is because you are too damn lazy and/or stupid to do so.

Glad you made it on your own. Why are you so consumed with making sure the rich pay a percentage you don't dare come close to paying. What principles do you live by?
 
#23
#23
rjd970 said:
I am responding to the ridiculous notion that the wealthy 1% deserve a tax break because they create jobs. I just want to know, after the tax breaks of the last 8 years, where all these jobs are.

I don't want anything from anybody. I worked two jobs all through college, got a good job, and went and got my masters. I am self-made and I did it all my own. I have created the life myself that I enjoy and I don't need a thing from anybody.

You guys are the one's on here saying the wealthiest need a break to create something for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
How are those guys getting a tax break when they bear roughly one third of the tax burden in the US and pay a larger percentage than everyone else? Explain that for me.

Are you setting forth some stupid idea like those folks don't employ more people than everyone else and make employment decisions based upon their tax burden. I don't know if you noticed that Wal-Mart just hammered 10% of their workforce without a tax hike. Let's imagine that with a tax hike.

As to the last 8 years, we maintained roughly economic full employment even after 9-11 because we kept taxes in check during the 90s and allowed for investment. Bush made that better. Presumably, Obama will keep that going out of necessity.

Who's pointing to the tax burden as the reason that this clown has failed us? Who's calling for different tax treatment, which is already absurdly skewed. If that playing field were even remotely leveled, middle America would scream to high heaven.
 
#24
#24
BigPapaVol said:
I'm saying that the wealth destruction in the private sector equals lost jobs, just as wealth creation re-employed after 9-11 hammered us. Uneven distribution of wealth is a reality of the world. Pretendingvthat leveling that field will help is senseless. Every system on earth has apex predators and bottom feeders. That is the law of nature that we won't be doing away with, ever.

This isn't about tax breaks. This is about having to hammer our future economy over a lie of a spending program. I know you're dying to harp on tax breaks, but this is different. This is mandating future hikes over a garbage plan, in the name of an emergency.

Finally, you want to point at the government, but they aren't the culprit here. Markets are cyclical and some move wildly from a confluence of disparate and unexpected events. Bush's disastrous fiscal policies had nothing to do with it.

Bottom line: private wealth, even unevenly distributed, is the key to prosperity in this land. Even our poorest have seen their standard of living skyrocket compared to the rest of the world.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your bottom line, just how you are getting there.

If the markets are cyclical, and Bush's policies saved us from 911, then aren't we seeing the extreme downside to that extreme growth? I think all Bush did was delay the inevitable with his policies, which made the looming recession all that worse when it hit.

And Obama is mandating future hikes over the ones that got the breaks the last 8 years. Call it however you want to see it, but those that benifited most from Bush's fiscal policies didn't do anything to stave off where we are now. They were drunk off the paychecks and forgot to create all these jobs that I keep hearing is the justification for giving them the break they did...and evidently to the majority of those on the board, deserve in the future now.

I don't want you to misunderstand me. I don't think the governement should be meddling in any of this, republican or democrat ideology. I think Bush's tax breaks contributed to where we are, and I think Obama's spending plan will make it worse. Neither are good, but tax breaks for the wealthiest certainly hasn't shown to be good for the economy for any extended period of time.
 
#25
#25
rjd970 said:
I don't disagree with your bottom line, just how you are getting there.

If the markets are cyclical, and Bush's policies saved us from 911, then aren't we seeing the extreme downside to that extreme growth? I think all Bush did was delay the inevitable with his policies, which made the looming recession all that worse when it hit.

And Obama is mandating future hikes over the ones that got the breaks the last 8 years. Call it however you want to see it, but those that benifited most from Bush's fiscal policies didn't do anything to stave off where we are now. They were drunk off the paychecks and forgot to create all these jobs that I keep hearing is the justification for giving them the break they did...and evidently to the majority of those on the board, deserve in the future now.

I don't want you to misunderstand me. I don't think the governement should be meddling in any of this, republican or democrat ideology. I think Bush's tax breaks contributed to where we are, and I think Obama's spending plan will make it worse. Neither are good, but tax breaks for the wealthiest certainly hasn't shown to be good for the economy for any extended period of time.
Click to expand...
we didn't have extreme growth, just some growth after 9-11. His loosening policies and tax policy helped.

How do you explain the employment stats over the last 8 years, after what happened in 01? We have, again, maintained near full employment until the last year, when we watched 15 trillion of market cap destroyed and 8 trillion of real estate wealth destroyed. Arguing that they were overinflated doesn't work, because pricing is simply psychology steeped in what a buyer is willing to pay. The psychology of all markets has shifted massively and we are today exacerbating that problem by trying to lay the blame on the last group.

Who do you think has taken the massive wealth beating over the past year? Why do you think that correlates nearly perfectly with the employment stats? It's clear that wealth at the top generates jobs. Any argument to the contrary is absolute crap. Wealth in government hands creates some jobs with limited money multiplier effect, thus decreasing efficiency. Developing a trillion dollar plan that will take future funds from the private to the public sector will prove disastrous, just as it did for FDR.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top