Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Arvada, Colorado
    Posts
    17,783
    vCash
    500
    Sorry lib, I can't add, so numbers make no sense to me.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,726
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    And since it's now become the thing to say that the wars are what is solely causing our deficit with a slice of tax cut pie

    2011 numbers
    War in Iraq cost 50 billion
    War in Afghanistan cost 108 billiion
    Total (above numbers included in this figure) department of defense cost in 2011 513 billion

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_850293.html
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html


    Total 2011 deficit (mind you this is just 2011) 1.4 trillion http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_deficit

    You could wipe out the department of defense hit the economy super hard and still have a 900 billion +- deficit
    I am in complete agreement that the house republicans should stop stuff they don't like. If it was the other way around I would want the dems to stop ****.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,046
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    Infrastructure and home mortgage refinancing are two things that are really needed to fix our ailing economy. The debt is a problem that can be addressed over the next 20 years. The mortgage crisis continues to be a drag on our economy and will only get worse when the market rebounds and banks start suing defaulting mortgagees.
    50 billion isn't going to be a stimulus. Heck democrats have argued that the 552 billion of the american recovery act wasn't enough (552 is the number without the tax cuts figured in. It's not all infrastructure though). And I forgot i'm very against mortgage refinancing assistance. They knew what they signed when they signed. Just like a car. And mortgages are near a multi year high. Home sales have really improved.

    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Combined cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 is approximately 1.4 trillion dollars.

    Source

    Loss of revenue attributed to the Bush Tax Cuts to the Federal Government through 2011 is approximately 1.3 trillion dollars.

    source

    It is now that I wish our resident economist was still with us, that we could peg the amount of lost tax revenue because of the recession. But if we look at just these two figures, we can see where a substantial part of the debt comes from.
    I def agree that the wars have a big part but some think it's the entire thing. Like I said you could wipe out the department of defense and still have a near record budget deficit.

    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    I am in complete agreement that the house republicans should stop stuff they don't like. If it was the other way around I would want the dems to stop ****.

    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.
    I think that's probably wise, and I think with a long term plan the markets and ratings will be fine.
    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.


    Come to psd where admitted dupes who do nothing but troll the gd and fs forum are free. But man don't you dare mention trolling on someone's wall.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    7,037
    vCash
    1500
    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.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,279
    vCash
    1500
    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.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NOR CAL
    Posts
    8,809
    vCash
    1500
    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

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,279
    vCash
    1500
    very true.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,458
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    We have more then a war problem. Considering we've had what 3 years with a balanced budget and a surplus in the last 60 years it's more then just wars and tax cuts.

    And yes if you keep the taxes at what they are and cut into medicare it will reduce the deficit as long as you don't raise spending somewhere else.
    Well we have been at war for over 200 years of our history. So we definitely have a war problem.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    7,719
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    And since it's now become the thing to say that the wars are what is solely causing our deficit with a slice of tax cut pie

    2011 numbers
    War in Iraq cost 50 billion
    War in Afghanistan cost 108 billiion
    Total (above numbers included in this figure) department of defense cost in 2011 513 billion

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_850293.html
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html


    Total 2011 deficit (mind you this is just 2011) 1.4 trillion http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_deficit

    You could wipe out the department of defense hit the economy super hard and still have a 900 billion +- deficit
    Well I don't think anyone said that a cut in military spending would pay off our debt in one year which seems to be what you're implying here. But if we stop financing wars we can't pay for, I believe that that will significantly bring our debt down over time. Of course, there are other programs that should be cut, but I think decreasing military spending (not meaning cuts in veteran benefits) is the first step in beginning to pay off the debt. A compliment to that would be raising taxes on top earners. Both tactics Obama is proposing.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    14,844
    vCash
    1500
    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; 11-30-2012 at 11:56 PM.
    Son, you just don't get it, i'm talking bout TWTW!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    14,844
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    And since it's now become the thing to say that the wars are what is solely causing our deficit with a slice of tax cut pie

    2011 numbers
    War in Iraq cost 50 billion
    War in Afghanistan cost 108 billiion
    Total (above numbers included in this figure) department of defense cost in 2011 513 billion

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_850293.html
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html


    Total 2011 deficit (mind you this is just 2011) 1.4 trillion http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_deficit

    You could wipe out the department of defense hit the economy super hard and still have a 900 billion +- deficit
    WASHINGTON (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.”
    http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011...ry-assessments
    Son, you just don't get it, i'm talking bout TWTW!

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,983
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhornfan1234 View Post
    We have a spending problem. Libs think that debt doesn't matter............and it's responsible to keep raising our debt limit.
    spending actually increased the LEAST under Obama versus any President since Eisenhower....the 2 Bushes and Reagan included. this MYTH that Obama is a big spender and that Progressives = big spending REALLY needs to end. in fact...according to FACTS, the Republicans are the big spenders...not Democrats.

    source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/
    Quote Originally Posted by lol, please View Post
    1. Thunder
    2. Warriors
    3. Clippers
    4. Blazers
    5. Grizzlies
    Quote Originally Posted by lol, please View Post

    I already have that scrizzguap on the Dubs winning a 'ship.
    Sincerely,
    delusional Warriors fan

    Quote Originally Posted by COOLbeans View Post
    What do you do for a living because I guarantee it's not in academics or psychology?

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    14,844
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by FOBolous View Post
    spending actually increased the LEAST under Obama versus any President since Eisenhower....the 2 Bushes and Reagan included. this MYTH that Obama is a big spender and that Progressives = big spending REALLY needs to end. in fact...according to FACTS, the Republicans are the big spenders...not Democrats.

    source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/
    That article is at best a half truth...

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...pendthrift.htm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...html#pagebreak



    Basically...

    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...
    Son, you just don't get it, i'm talking bout TWTW!

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,946
    vCash
    1500
    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.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justinnum1
    Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,458
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhornfan1234 View Post
    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.
    Why not? Should we not look to the side that has realized all the major gains (yes there have actually been those who have seen their wealth skyrocket in the last 4 years) for where we might increase taxes without hurting the economic system in order to reduce the deficit?

    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!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •