Sorry lib, I can't add, so numbers make no sense to me.
Sorry lib, I can't add, so numbers make no sense to me.
You're talking to me all wrong... It's the wrong tone. You do it again and I'll stab you in the face with a soldering iron. Hey, tell me, does your mother sew? BOOM. Get her to sew that!
As far as cutting... I honestly think that we have to approach this with 1937 in mind (that's when we caused a recession we didnt get out of till WW2. . They should be long term cuts phased in. With the European union in crisis, and China slowing down I think we should get a handle on the new normal before all the cuts hit us. Because honestly if we cut to deep right now we will hurt ourselves. I believe that we need to cut deep but we have to make it gradual. I think the same could be said for the tax cuts. Maybe next year the rate jumps to the Clinton years for 1 mil and up, next year 750,000, the year after that 500,000, then 250,000. And then we do the same with the budget cuts. So that we can give the economy time to adjust. As always I'm not an economist but this is what makes sense to me.
Originally Posted by MrPoon
That said I agree on china slowing which will have an effect on us moreso then EU.
Remember though WW2 got us out of the recession/depression.
Magic # 14
Well I felt that way about the banks we bailed out but I still recognized it had to be done to avoid a serious collapse. The same thing is going to happen in the coming years with all the permanent financial liability people will be under from the mortgage crisis. I also do not place nearly as much blame on consumers in the mortgage industry because I've seen the types of practices that were engaged in by the lendors.
this is why these threads are important and rather then attacking different view points, when we hear someone like BMD expressing ideas that seem to have been formented for him,we have a responsibility to educate him as best we can.
1st.) austerity measures(cutting back) dont work.
The european countries that tried that method made things far, far worse.
Their recession deepened, their economy dipped and unemployment increased.
2nd) the stimulus was the BEST THING WE DID.
once again, track the expenditures and their effects, I know RT. leaning media has tried to denounce the stimulus and say it was ineffective but that is a lie. It was highly effective , needed to be BIGGER, and frankly, a bigger stimulus package was attatched to the republican idea that was rejected.
3rd) this current stimulus is an infrastructure plan.that absolutely is desperately needed, and will employ thousands nationwide.
4th) it isnt NOW popular to say the wars and tax cuts caused these issues...it has ALWAYS been the case, you just dont get the truth from the sources you read/listen to.
5th) raising taxes on the top 2% has been scored by the CBO as nuetral in effecting the economy.THE IDEA THAT TAXING THE JOB CREATORS will hurt the economy is another lie becasue even if they were the job creators, and they are not, peopel dont decide to expand or shrink their buisnesses based on tax rates, they do it based on demand.
Being a fiscal conservative is a honorable trait, the sources you get your INFO from arent interested in fiscal conservatism, they are interested in keeping the deck stacked in their favor.
Look guys the only thing that will work is to raise some taxes and cut some spending. It's that simple, although what gets cut and what gets raised could be a complicated procedure I am sure.
We are not going to work our way out of this with just one or the other.
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt
There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.
-Barack "drone" Obama, 11/18/2012
CJ Wilson: 100% Handsome
QE4 will be announced after the fiscal cliff blows over, you can take that to the bank... literally
They will however NOT discontinue QE3 and the Fed will start buying 40billion in Treasury Bonds per month ONTOP of the 45billion they're handing over to banks with QE3 to buy toxic mortgage backed securities.
That's 85billion per month for at least 2013, or just over ANOTHER trillion dollars of economic support that hasn't worked not once, not twice, but now three times.
That's an even greater devaluation in the currency and even a greater burden on the middle class or people on fixed incomes (seniors/welfare recipients).
Combine that with the fact Bernanke has said the Fed intends to keep interest rates close to 0 until 2015 and you can essentially bet the house that even more stimulus will come after QE4.
This is why physical gold and silver, with a greater emphasis on silver, are great buys for the long term right now.
3 years from now people will be shocked at how far these precious metals go, including palladium and platinum.
Last edited by whitesoxfan83; 12-01-2012 at 12:56 AM.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011...ry-assessmentsWASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The nine-year-old Iraq war came to an official end on Thursday, but paying for it will continue for decades until U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $4 trillion.
Over a 50-year period, that comes to $80 billion annually.
Although that only represents about 1% of nation’s gross domestic product, it’s more than half of the national budget deficit. It’s also roughly equal to what the U.S. spends on the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency combined each year.
Near the start of the war, the U.S. Defense Department estimated it would cost $50 billion to $80 billion. White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was dismissed in 2002 after suggesting the price of invading and occupying Iraq could reach $200 billion.
“The direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you can’t easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.
Those costs include interest payments on the billions borrowed to fund the war; the cost of maintaining military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain to defend Iraq or reoccupy the country if the Baghdad government unravels; and the expense of using private security contractors to protect U.S. property in the country and to train Iraqi forces.
Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July.
Other experts said that was too conservative and anticipate twice that amount. The advance in medical technology has helped more soldiers survive battlefield injuries, but followup care can often last a lifetime and be costly.
More than 32,000 soldiers were wounded in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Add in Afghanistan and that number jumps to 47,000.
Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to the fighting in Iraq, said Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Brown University.
Her numbers, which are backed by similar studies at Columbia and Harvard universities, estimate the U.S. has already spent $2 trillion on the wars after including debt interest and the higher cost of veterans’ disabilities.
The annual budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has more than doubled since 2003 to a requested $132.2 billion for fiscal 2012. That amount is expected to rise sharply over the next four decades as lingering health problems for veterans become more serious as they grow older.
Costs for Vietnam veterans did not peak until 30 or 40 years after the end of the war, according to Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
“We will have a vast overhang in domestic costs for caring for the wounded and covering retirement expenditure of the war fighters,” said Loren Thompson, a policy expert with the Lexington Institute. “The U.S. will continue to incur major costs for decades to come.”
Dwight Howard showing Kobe who "the man" is
This guy talks about a percentage increase instead of an actual dollar increase. If spending goes from $100 to $110, then it has increased 10%. If spending goes from $1,000 to $1,090 then it has increased only 9%. Now how do you spin these numbers? Well, you could say that under the first scenario, spending increased by 10% whereas under the second scenario it only increased by 9%. However, in terms of dollars spent, nine times as many dollars were spent under scenario two than were spent under scenario one. You can talk about percentages all day long but Obama has spent more money than Bush Jr. in less than half the time. Period.
That doesn't absolve Bush as our giant mess can essentially be laid square on the shoulders of him and Greenspan but this Obama is a small spender **** is totally bull.
When Bush took office, the debt was around $5.6 trillion; when he left, it was around $10 trillion which represents a 78.5% increase. When Obama took office, the debt was around $10 trillion and now it is about $16 trillion, which represents a 60% increase. In dollar terms, Obama added $1.5 trillion more than Bush in less than half the time. So forget the percentages, the question is would you rather have $4.5 trillion added to the debt or $6 trillion? The Republicans tried to spin this when Bush was president. Dick Morris (an accurate first name by the way) used to say that Bush's spending increases were a smaller percentage of GDP than in previous years. Well, if the GDP is $10 trillion, then a 3% spending increase would be $300 billion in spending. If the GDP is $15 trillion, you may only increase spending by 2.75% which would be $375 billion so although you spend less as a percentage of GDP, you spend more money in dollar terms that we don't have which results in us having to borrow, tax or print $375 billion and causes the price of good and services in America to go up; hence, we all get poorer.
This is all you have to see to know this article is and was a load of lies.
2008: $2.98 trillion
2009: $3.27 trillion
2010: $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.60 trillion
2012: $3.65 trillion
2013: $3.72 trillion
There's no decrease there...
Let's be real about tax revenues, both sides are wrong on the issue. The deficit is not going to be solved by one class taking on the burden. Overall tax reform is needed and potentially new taxes replaces old in effective taxes.
Originally Posted by justinnum1
Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012
The notion that we can simply cut $16T out of spending must seem ridiculous to more than just me. For cutting alone to be the solution to our problem, we will bear the debt for a minimum of 20 years, assuming we cut government spending by roughly 33% and never decide that we want the government to do anything again.
I am 100% with you that the vast majority of our problem comes from government spending. I have always been a supporter of roughly a 4:1 solution, with 4 spending cuts to every tax increase. Because we do spend far too much, but we are trying to cut the wrong spending in order to cut the debt. Cutting money that is entirely paid off or roughly 90% paid off with its own tax revenue makes no sense to me. Social Security is self-funded as well as Medicare. They may need tweaks in the near future but these programs are self-sufficient from tax revenue. They are not the problem that we face. Our debt is caused by other government programs that are not as self-sufficient. When we institute a government program it must be accompanied by a funding mechanism, both Social Security and Medicare were. However, an example of a government program that came with no funding mechanism would be the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They were considered emergencies and hence not funded because that would have taken too long, rightly or wrongly. The FCC and DOT are examples of agencies that are self-funding. We pay the taxes on our cable and internet bills as well as the gasoline tax that finance those agencies, the same with the SEC with investment taxes and other fees.
Entitlements may make up the largest part of our budget, along with the defense department, but they are funded by their own mechanisms and just because they are a large part does not mean that they are the problem.
Member of the Owlluminati!