Story Comments
Posted by: CHAM 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
80%
CHAM7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good Post Wiki but not really the total debt.
Reply
The long term liabilities now total over $70 Trillion. And for the Bush lovers, the debt of $11.3 Trillion was about $5 Trillion when Bush came into office and the Long Term Liabilities was $20 Trillion when he came in.
So Bush brought that $20 Trillion to close to $50 Trillion and the $5 Trillion to about $10.9 Trillion in his eight years. The Bush total added debt then is about $55 Trillion of the $80 Trillion or about 69% of what is now owed. But around $25 Trillion or close to 30% of that total was there when Bush came in.
Therefore Obama has added less than 1% to the total outstanding debt.
Thought you Republicans would just love those bits of data.-
100%
nostalgia7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Therefore Obama has added less than 1% to the total outstanding debt"
Reply
In 4 months - that's a record to be proud of?
Where were both sides of the aisle when they were trying to reform Social Security - out to lunch
Now we have more boomers retiring earlier than expected
What do you think that is going to do to the system?
What do you advocate - when you are in a hole keep digging?
What do you think monetizing debt is going to do?
How high do you think inflation is going to be?
What do you think will happen if the govt loses it's AAA bond rating?
Someone needs to wake up in DC and realize they are piling on so much debt that our children and grandchildren will be buried
Did you support the Medicare RX drug program - the boondoggle? Let's get rid of that
How about closing EVERY Federal agency/department that is not specified in the constitution - starting with the Depts of Education and Energy?-
Neutral
willottica7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In 4 months. Well, if you compare it to Bush's accomplishment:
Reply
1% in 4 months * 3months / year * 8 years... At that rate, Obama will add 24%. Bush added 69%.
Sounds like about 1/3rd of the amount to me... AND he's trying to stimulate the economy!-
100%
nostalgia7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you seeing any stimulus??
Reply
Look at recent headlines
Missouri's Using Stimulus Money to Pay Tax Rebates - is this what was intended with the stimulus money?
IRS tax revenue falls along with taxpayers' income
Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago — the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.
Police officers saved by stimulus may still lose jobs
It was a success story the White House was eager to highlight: Earlier this year, President Obama attended the graduation of 25 police recruits in Columbus, Ohio, touting it as a victory for the federal stimulus package.
Without the money, the officers never would have hit the streets. They were to be laid off before their first day of patrol, victims of city budget cuts, until the stimulus money saved the class.
But the White House said the $1.2 million grant only guaranteed their jobs until the end of the year. And facing a growing deficit and a fight to pass an income tax hike, Columbus Police on Tuesday announced massive budget cuts that could mean hundreds of layoffs.
Among those who could lose their jobs if voters reject the increase: the 25 new officers who shook the president's hand.
It's not working!
As Federal tax revenues tumble, the deficit will grow
The Obama budget also projects GDP will grow by 3.5% in the last quarter of this year - a pipe dream-
100%
quackpot7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Countering your opinion is the opinion of Leading Economists who think the recession will end in 2009 according to a survey published today.
Reply
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/27/news/economy/NABE_...-
100%
nostalgia7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Quack you need to read more than one source
Reply
U.S. economy at risk of double-dip recession
The U.S. economy appears destined for several years of weak growth and high unemployment that leave it vulnerable to a recession relapse after the massive dose of government stimulus wears off.
While tepid growth looks likely to resume late this year and build modestly into 2010, the credit bust has left households and businesses unable or unwilling to borrow and spend as freely as they did before the crisis.
The U.S. government has stepped in as lender and spender of last resort, but its deep pockets are not bottomless. Waning political and investor appetite for taking on more debt could stand in the way of any additional big spending plans.
"When you remove the government stimulus, what the private sector can generate in terms of growth feels like a recession," said Jeffrey Rosenberg, head of global credit strategy at Banc of America Securities Merrill Lynch in New York.
Rosenberg thinks the U.S. economy may trudge along at a sluggish growth rate somewhere in the range of 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent while banks recover from the credit crisis, which could take another three years.
"If that's what you're able to generate, that economy is not generating the job growth required to bring the unemployment rate down," Rosenberg said.
This is a much darker outlook than the one put forward by President Barack Obama's administration in its latest budget projections, which show economic growth bouncing back to 3.2 percent next year and hitting 4.6 percent by 2012.
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE...
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets...
Reply
"Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (?): 1789–2013"
Hi Nostalgia:
As usual my thoughts on your comment are mixed. I think the RX thing sucks, I think the department of energy should possibly be combined with interior and make a profit.
I would hang onto education, but that is the liberal in me.
I hope you do take the time to look at the spread sheet from the link.
My thought (and it could be wrong) is that you would like to see a return to the role of the federal government that occurred after world war 1. From 1919 to 1928 federal spending and tax rates reduced dramatically. I was just looking at the history of major stock market crashes. Too much detail to type right now, but we did manage to get through 1942 till 1973 without a major crash. This was a time of high tax rates and expanding government.
I have read your words many times about the "New Deal", but I have to wonder about your opinion of the "Marshal Plan" or the "GI Bill"?
Sorry a bit distracted this evening.
-
-
loading ...
rumple4skin
quackpot
flyonthewallzz
Progressive
Pecossam
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.