Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
$1.3 Trillion in Deficits Forecast Over Decade
Topic Started: Jan 26 2005, 10:06 AM (659 Views)
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
somerled
Jan 27 2005, 08:34 AM
Wichita
Jan 26 2005, 08:24 PM
^^^^

Personal Response

Hey, why not?    :lol:

We are blaming what happened during the Clinton Administration on George W. Bush .....  ;)

:loling:  :loling:

End of Personal Response

He's the one who has blown all that money picking a fight (Iraq) and then finding it aint so easy to extract himself without loosing face bigtime.

Not to mention giving a tax break to his main supporters at the cost of his less affluent countrymen.

Personal Response

So, you agree that money spent by the US Government during the period of 1992 - 2000 is the responsibility of George W. Bush who WASN'T the President from 1992-2000? :ermm: :ermm:

Tell you what - let's blame the Spanish-American War on him, too. If we can blame expenditures on him from when he wasn't President, why not wars that occurred before he was born?


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
I'm sick of those that wish to place blame on one politician or another.

This is a nation that governs by the consent of the governed.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE HIGH TRADE DEFICITS, EFFING QUIT BUY EFFING JAPANESE CARS, AND IF YOU EFFING DON'T LIKE HIGH BUDGET DEFICITS QUIT DEMANDING GOVERNMENT FREEBIES!!!!!

Effing whiners need to get a life.

Dwayne,

With your permission, I would make one change to your above post. Your last sentence ought to read:

"Effing whiners need to get an effing life."

In the future, would you please try to be more careful? Thanks.




















;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Yes, good effing grammar is effing important!





:D
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 26 2005, 02:13 PM
Okay, let's get the deficit under control.

What do you want to cut? Forget the tax increase. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN, and besides tax cuts stimulate spending. Spending generates taxes, both for states and the federal government, and creates jobs, which generates taxes, and so on...

Let's see what we have:

We can not cut the military. Period. First, we are at war. Second, our biggest blunder was allowing the military to be cut during the 1990s (both the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations). While the Soyuz Sovietskiiy went away, the threats did not. That was a collossal error.

We have this new Department of Homeland Security, like it or not (bureaucratic boondoggle that it is), so it has to stay, in part or in kind.

So, what does that leave. Everything else. Where do you start?

(Side note: Does anyone here know about something called Zero-Based Budgeting?)

It seems like your solution is to do nothing and let things continue as they are. (Correct me if I am wrong please.) I don't think that is a viable alternative.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Jan 27 2005, 09:02 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 26 2005, 02:13 PM
Okay, let's get the deficit under control.

What do you want to cut? Forget the tax increase. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN, and besides tax cuts stimulate spending. Spending generates taxes, both for states and the federal government, and creates jobs, which generates taxes, and so on...

Let's see what we have:

We can not cut the military. Period. First, we are at war. Second, our biggest blunder was allowing the military to be cut during the 1990s (both the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations). While the Soyuz Sovietskiiy went away, the threats did not. That was a collossal error.

We have this new Department of Homeland Security, like it or not (bureaucratic boondoggle that it is), so it has to stay, in part or in kind.

So, what does that leave. Everything else. Where do you start?

(Side note: Does anyone here know about something called Zero-Based Budgeting?)

It seems like your solution is to do nothing and let things continue as they are. (Correct me if I am wrong please.) I don't think that is a viable alternative.

No, I said specifically,

Quote:
 
What do you want to cut?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

If you don't allow tax increases or cuts in the military the only viable cut has to be to entitlements. Everything else in the budget does not amount to much, certainly not enough to fix the deficit.

What do you want to cut, AB?
| Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Admiral,

Thanks. It is good to have correct grammar. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Fesarius
Jan 27 2005, 09:40 AM
Quote:
 
I'm sick of those that wish to place blame on one politician or another.

This is a nation that governs by the consent of the governed.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE HIGH TRADE DEFICITS, EFFING QUIT BUY EFFING JAPANESE CARS, AND IF YOU EFFING DON'T LIKE HIGH BUDGET DEFICITS QUIT DEMANDING GOVERNMENT FREEBIES!!!!!

Effing whiners need to get a life.

Dwayne,

With your permission, I would make one change to your above post. Your last sentence ought to read:

"Effing whiners need to get an effing life."

In the future, would you please try to be more careful? Thanks.




















;)

Don't effing make me effing come effing over effing there and effing give you an effing :kiss:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Thanks. I should have edited it a tad more. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I hope my parents enjoy my retirement. :(
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Wichita
Jan 27 2005, 07:31 AM
somerled
Jan 27 2005, 08:25 AM
The Sisko
Jan 26 2005, 02:16 PM
Maybe we can stop using taxes to subsidize private industries.

http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

Now that's an idea that has merit.

You can start with
Halliburton ,
Aerospace Corp. ,
Alliedsignal Inc. ,
Avondale Industries ,
Boeing Company ,
Computer Sciences Corp. ,
Dyncorp ,
General Dynamics Corp. ,
General Electric Company ,
The IT Group Inc. ,
ITT Industries ,
Litton Industries, Inc. ,
Lockheed Martin Corp. ,
The Mitre Corp. ,
Newport Shipbuilding Inc. ,
Northrop Grumman Corp. ,
Raytheon Company ,
Rockwell Intern. Corp. ,
Science Applications International ,
Standard Missile Company ,
Textron Inc. ,
TRW Inc. ,
United Technologies Corp.

And all those protected industries who are not operating in a really free market.

And by the by , eventually all those loans taken out and the interest will have be paid back, hey it's not going to be money out of my pocket, I'm not resident in the USA or an american citisen. You can't live beyond your means for long without something giving.

Personal Response

Oh, now there's a good idea ... :rolleyes:

Having the government get into the business of making ALL the goods that it uses .... worked well for the Soviet Union :ermm: :ermm: .... well, before it disintegrated, of course ...... :lol:

Governments needs certains goods to operate. There is no history to suggest that governments can produce those goods cheaper or of better quality than private industry can produce them.

To claim an ordinary, everyday sales contract is somehow disasterous and unfair to the everyday taxpayer is just silly. :no2: :no2:

End of Personal Response

It works just fine in many countries , and goods and services provided by government run industries , are cheaper for the consumers to purchase , there being no profit motive, only an need to be fiscally neutral from a government budget sense.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
I have a trade deficit with my grocer, my utility company and my landlord (to name a few). The arrangement does not seem to harm any of the people invovled.

I have debt in the form of student loans and am looking to go int further debt after I have a decent down payment on a house.

My current debt is approximately 81% of my annual income.

With a nice house with a small amount of acerage, my debt would easily climb to 500% of my present income.

This debt that everyone is clamouring about it, is what percent of the federal government reciept?

I think very little needs to be done to reduce the existing debt.

I do find strange that deficit spending was the status quo of both parties for so long and now each side has used it against the other.

ANOVA
reckless spender.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus