10 things about our new budget

[kronus]

You should understand that a big part of this problem was brought on by the sub-prime housing market. Which those laws were put into effect in the Clinton administration under Sec. of Housing & Urban Development (Andrew Cuomo). And now we have to RUN to China to beg them to buy our bonds to keep FINANCING us into this downward spiral we are in.


:twisted:

Yeah, I'm aware of that one. I don't subscribe to any single party's speaking points and blindly parrot their cause, and don't have any problem saying that that was a mistake in retrospect.

Be thankful that someone has money left. If China couldn't buy our bulked bad loans everyone would be in much more hot shit than they are now. It happened in Russia in '98.. let's hope it doesn't happen this time. (although this time it's much worse)

[atomic]

There's a difference between completely unsustainable and potentially sustainable. (call me an idealist, call Obama a shill, whatever, there's a difference.) What we did to get in this position was unsustainable, in that it provided no infrastructure for creating investment opportunities. (other than military contractors)

This plan is an attempt to bring back a sustainable infrastructure, in that the systems it creates and invests in provide a steady, positive return after an appropriate initial amount is paid.

You should understand that a big part of this problem was brought on by the sub-prime housing market. Which those laws were put into effect in the Clinton administration under Sec. of Housing & Urban Development (Andrew Cuomo). And now we have to RUN to China to beg them to buy our bonds to keep FINANCING us into this downward spiral we are in.


:twisted:

[mrsleeve]

Wow how hard is this that hard to get. If you spend more than you make, that = bad. You have 2 choices earn more money or cut what you spend, WHY is it that we are not cutting govt spending on useless things right now. Why ??????????? Why are we increasing the size scope and invasiveness of the govt when we should be doing the opposite. No instead we are on a all out spending spree, and stealing from our children, who will be the ones who ultimately pay for all this. Its like our elected officials are 15 year old MTV girls with daddy's credit card and daddy is all out of money and about to lose his job and kill him self.

We will be taxed more to fund all these stupid programs that reward the irresponsible behavior and a larger govt. my god I need a drink.

[kronus]

Don't you know those big words confuse the Obamabots?

Keep it simple. Hope. Change. Rich. Tax.

They understand those words, but not the big ones like "balance" and "budget" nor do they understand those concepts.

hurr durr I am clearly a sheep and believe whatever I am told.


Really, look past your own ignorance and self-assured righteousness and realize that not everyone else is as shortsighted as you are.

[E30 Cabrio]

^^^ dude.. that's the budget. It's how much he's going to spend this year. If we don't collect enough taxes, we'll have to borrow the money a la deficit spending, which he has promised to reverse.

Don't you know those big words confuse the Obamabots?

Keep it simple. Hope. Change. Rich. Tax.

They understand those words, but not the big ones like "balance" and "budget" nor do they understand those concepts.

[kronus]

wait.. so let's spend money we don't have because we'll eventually make all that money back and more by spending this money now. Isn't that how we got in this in the first place?

There's a difference between completely unsustainable and potentially sustainable. (call me an idealist, call Obama a shill, whatever, there's a difference.) What we did to get in this position was unsustainable, in that it provided no infrastructure for creating investment opportunities. (other than military contractors)

This plan is an attempt to bring back a sustainable infrastructure, in that the systems it creates and invests in provide a steady, positive return after an appropriate initial amount is paid.

[Ral]

wait.. so let's spend money we don't have because we'll eventually make all that money back and more by spending this money now. Isn't that how we got in this in the first place?

[kronus]

Well, I don't think deficit spending has been looked down on much in the last couple of years, so it's allright, right?



In all seriousness, it's unrealistic to expect any sort of stimulus without spending money. While the current plan isn't instantly sustainable, it sets down a framework (via jobs, investment in technology, etc) that has the best chance of becoming sustainable in a reasonable time frame that I've seen since I've been old enough to care. You can't instantly reverse the current situation, but every little scrap of money thrown at it will help.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Edit: NM ral beat me to it

[Ral]

^^^ dude.. that's the budget. It's how much he's going to spend this year. If we don't collect enough taxes, we'll have to borrow the money a la deficit spending, which he has promised to reverse.

[kronus]

The smoke and mirrors are entirely on the article's part. I see no reason the government should be able to pay off an entire, huge stimulus package after just one tax cycle. This is, after all, a loan, and as such, is paid back in a finite number of years whose number definitely exceeds 1.

Essentially, the only thing the article succeeds in doing is claiming that the US's rich make about as much in a year as the government spends.














Which is a funny coinkydink.

[Pinepig]

Explain to me what you think that article proves.

[E30 Cabrio]

Explain to me what you think that article proves.

It proves someone at the WSJ actually crunched the numbers and they revealed that Obama is full of shit.

[gwb72tii]

Explain to me what you think that article proves.

what it proves is obama uses smoke and mirrors to get his political ideals passed in the guise of an economic "fucking crisis".

the man promised to change DC. only fucking change is obama raping us in the ass instead of bush.

[mrsleeve]

Explain to me what you think that article proves.

It proves that that earnings of the top 2% cant pay for all this spending, so we (the less than 250k earners) that were promised no tax increase, will see a raise in our taxes via a direct tax on income, or indirect by taxing business that supply necessary goods and services. One way or another more of our money will make it into the govt and be pissed away.

Thats what it proves god dammit you guys have thick skulls


Pinepig, thats awesome I wish I could get away with it where I live.