![President Barack Obama’s Proposed Budget [Infographic]](http://cdn2.diggstatic.com/story/president_barack_obama_s_proposed_budget_infographic/t.png)
Users who Dugg This
Kaostricks
3094 Followers
MediaSight
13125 Followers
Sunil Jain
32 Followers
Siraj Ahmed
1034 Followers
SoniyaShrma
1591 Followers
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
dmashakMar 10, 2011
Psst... Psst... Can someone tell Obama that we are on track to run a $1.7 Trillion deficit in fiscal 2011.... Can someone tell him that he needs to cut the deficit by about AT LEAST $17 TRILLION IN 10 YEARS assuming things dont get fiscally worse (and we already know they are getting worse.)
EITHER OBAMA IS STUPID OR HE IS INTENTIONALLY RUNNING THE COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND... PARTYING LIKE A ROCK STAR ON THE WAY TO COLLAPSE.
WAKE UP AMERICA
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashakComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Mar 10, 2011
This is funny. He quadrupled the deficit in just 2 years and then says he promises to cut it in half. Sounds like a classic con job to me.
Closed AccountMar 10, 2011
This is back door wealth redistribution. It's another channel of "change". The larger the deficit he runs up intentionally the more we have to print money and monetize our debt thereby decreasing the value of any savings or property of the successful yet the 35% of those living off of the govt. plus govt. employees have their payments keep up with the inflation caused by our debt. Obama's goal is to have the two intersect at some point in net worth, the perceived "haves" equal to the perceived "have nots".
I.e. SocialismComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theonewhoknowsMar 10, 2011
A trillion over a decade = 100 billion a year. And lets face it, he's got 2 years left, and who knows what'll happen after that.
So the big news is he PLANS to cut about 100 billion over the next two years, and hopes that future presidents will cut an additional 800 billion.
Not enough.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitMar 10, 2011
Look what he was left to work with though. Anything is an improvement on that.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
And he has already created more jobs that bush/cheney did.
theonewhoknowsMar 10, 2011
I'm not defending previous spending. Obama entered the job knowing we were hemoraging money, wiped up a couple of drops, and acts like things have been properly bandaged.
"Anything is an imporvement" is a very low bar to set.
bille3Mar 10, 2011
Creating government jobs while destroying private sector jobs is not improvement. Private sector underemployment and unemployment is hovering around 18%.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyMar 10, 2011
How has he destroyed private sector jobs?
ganjadude4391Mar 10, 2011
offshore oil ban for one
chefgroovyMar 11, 2011
Scared small businesses away from hiring new employees that they will have to pay health insurance for
spuy767Mar 10, 2011
That's not the point. The point is that he says he's 'Slashing' the deficit by a trillion when its him and his congress who increased the deficit by 10 trillion.
bille3Mar 10, 2011
The people do not pay close attention to the reality. They are easily swayed by the hype and glittering generalities of good PR and posturing. Obama is already ramping up the campaign rhetoric for re election.
JustSayNoPartyMar 10, 2011
I would say the National Tea Party was also quite good at PR and posturing. I don't look forward to the rhetoric from any of these politicians. Uggggg, please limit 'campaigns' to 6 months. For the love of sanity.
bdbrMar 10, 2011
That's the way all federal budgets are - rosy predictions of the future, but plenty of debt this year (unless there happens to be a dot com boom).
timthetaxmanMar 10, 2011
I love how they spin this. You increase the deficit by a huge amount, but then cut a portion of it away in future years and your considered cutting the deficit when the total amount of spending is still higher overall.
norman619Mar 10, 2011
Sneaky ain't it? Let's see how many people notice the scam. On Digg I expect the Obama faithful to be completely oblivious to it.
theonewhoknowsMar 10, 2011
What a crock this infographic is. The numbers are one BILLION times less than they appear. Can you believe it, we have to divide the actual numbers we are in the whole for by 1 BILLION times, just so that we can try to understand them better.
If it helps put it in perspective, every working person in the united states is on the hook for 5 times the numbers listed. This years' deficit of 1293.5 alone equals about ~6,500 per working person. That's right, the government is planning on spending, in addition to the taxes it already took from you, an additional 6,500 per working person this year.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Mar 10, 2011
This is hilarious. They are burying us but don't have the balls to actually challenge what we have said.
timthetaxmanMar 10, 2011
The statist mindset requires a lot of doublethink to make it logically valid.
ncmusicMar 10, 2011
Why do you use the term statist? Are you intentionally trying to be less than 1% of the population?
timthetaxmanMar 10, 2011
I use the term statist to encompass everyone who looks to state aggression to solve problems Republican, Democrat, and others.
I not following your 1% statement.
ncmusicMar 10, 2011
I think well over 99% of the people want a government and therefore are statist.
linuxpersonMar 10, 2011
Wanting a government is not equivalent to wanting a state. Government exists in the absence of a state.
That said, you are right about 99% of the population being statist.
timthetaxmanMar 10, 2011
@ncmusic
I think 99% is a little high, but I’ve always been one to think for myself. I don’t mind being in the minority. The problem I have is when the majority thinks it can involuntarily force its will upon people. Government ought to exist from the consent of the governed rather than by forceful compliance.
ncmusicMar 10, 2011
The state and the government being two entities I think is a debatable one.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/content/government-vs-state
http://mises.org/community/forums/t/3265.aspx
Even agreeing with the assumption there's probably only 1% that come down on the agreeing they are different and that they would prefer to have a government w/o a state? I don't seeing that position being very popular at all in our country. Esp considering all the other philosophical things you'd have to teach them just to help make it clear you can have roads w/o a state etc.
I wasn't trying to criticize your opinion just dismiss and demoralize it! :)
timthetaxmanMar 10, 2011
@ncmusic
I admit, that it is definitely an uphill battle. People are indoctrinated at a very young age that the government is necessary and without it we would all turn into savages and murderers and society itself would collapse. Further, by following that logic, we are taught that the use of force is ok if the ends justify the means.
I actually don’t have a problem with the existence of government, if it is voluntary. Remove the power of taxation and the ability draft laws for victimless crimes and you would be left with an entity that could only change for the services people want from it and only act against those who harm their neighbor. Roads could be handled either at the private or public level as could any public service (we are already used to toll roads). Whomever was able to provide the best value for the service would get the revenue. There would be no coercive monopoly any longer.
linuxpersonMar 10, 2011
"The state and the government being two entities I think is a debatable one."
No it isn't, it never has been. Family structures are a representative of government and they existed LONG before states existed.
State and government as terms are often times interchanged, but the terms have very different literal meanings.
"I wasn't trying to criticize your opinion just dismiss and demoralize it! :)"
Given that my opinion was an objective observation of reality, you failed miserably!
comgenMar 11, 2011
@timthetaxman
"Remove the power of taxation and the ability draft laws for victimless crimes and you would be left with an entity that could only change for the services people want from it and only act against those who harm their neighbor. Roads could be handled either at the private or public level as could any public service (we are already used to toll roads). " -- timthetaxman
---
I do see your point on tax and law, however;
Without taxation and law the original idea of Government would become obsolete. Government was put into to place to govern a large body of society that would other wise be unable to, to protect, and provide collectively [community or independently]. If individuals were left to govern themselves it would create a great divide among family and community which overall would lead to more poverty, crime, health issues and economic struggle. I do not agree with the way all funds are used or implemented in the USA by our elected officials, however, without common ground rules we would suffer a great deal more than, for example a 2% tax increase here and there over a span of time. Without restrictions and regulations there would be no free market, only "gold rush" style dog-eat-dog old west monopolies. Without regulation on the sale of assault weapons it would make them easier [not obsolete] to obtain by those among us which do not "think clearly", as for the right to arms or more specifically to protect ones home....guns of all shape and sizes are still available...I see no need for a family of three to stock pile m16's or high power automatic weapons [easy to fall into the wrong hands] and laws that regulate the purchase time of firearms does more good than harm, in the event there is ever a need for mass USA citizen involvement in a homeland war, I'm sure the restriction will be ignored. Until then, Jack that just caught Jill cheating on him and is pissed off shopping for an 9mil should be subject to a 5 day cool down period before purchasing a semi-automatic or simply shop the shotgun section. Here restrictions protect a greater number than it actually restricts and/or take away some misunderstood liberty.
Taxes that pay for roads and education at the state/federal level reduces the financial burdens that would other wise be present, can you imagine trying to ship something to a location with low "toll-road" revenues, where roads are largely dirt or filled with potholes or what about children born into communities/camps that put the education budget well behind the "brothel" budget or priority or decides it safe to dump waste up stream, since it becomes another clans health issue. If Government had any less involvement and only provided national security and limited to select laws [which who will decide this], we can simply do away with the Gov, elect leaders for each camp, provide militia based defense for our clan......kind-of civil war-ish. Point of Gov is to provide a balance, provide what is best for the majority and make an attempt to satisfy the minority. If my taxes go up 2% due to a need for roads/education that support 51% or more of my fellow citizens, even if it does not benefit the area I live in or my needs at the time..so be it....next time I might be part of the majority. Good to know its going to be there when needed. " People are indoctrinated at a very young age that the government is necessary and without it we would all turn into savages and murderers and society itself would collapse. "......human nature 101 contradicts your point of view, we have multiple points in history [some rather current] as reference.
---
" in a democracy are honest and are attempting to make the world better. The problem is that there are extreme moral issues when using a gun to make the world better......Moreover, you have the risk of the ends justifying the means. So much horror throughout history can be traced to people rationalizing evil because they think they can do good by using force. Evil people rarely think themselves so. " -- timthetaxman
"The statist mindset requires a lot of doublethink to make it logically valid." -- timthetaxman
---
A budget proposed is related to [violent gun metaphor and evil people statism] how ?
Admittedly I might have over looked or misunderstood the context of this original thread...if so I apologize.
Anyway, just my few cents worth of babble for the hour :-)
-- best regards
timthetaxmanMar 11, 2011
@comgen
I agree the issues are complex and worthy of a dissertation length debate. It simply just can’t be done on digg.
If you are interested in how a free society might work, I’d suggest you read “For a New Liberty” by Murray Rothbard. It’s an easy read and lays out just how a free society would work. It covers everything from roads to national defense. It is probably the quintessential text for entry into the academia of freedom literature. There is free pdf version and audio book at Mises. http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
There is also a relatively new book out called “Healing our World in an Age of Aggression” by Mary Ruwart. It is an introductory text much like For a New Liberty, but really has a good appeal for traditional liberals and how their beliefs of social equality and justice and not at all incompatible with a free society.
Even if we disagree after reading one or both, I think you will be enriched from it. I regularly read “The Nation” and find is a good mental exercise to continually challenge my beliefs.
The violent gun metaphor is derived from the ultimate consequences of taxation and other forms of coercive legislation. Taxation is not voluntary. If you refuse to pay, the police will show up and put you in jail until you do. If you resist, guns will become involved. Keep in mind you did nothing to harm anyone and were minding your own business on your own property.
comgenMar 11, 2011
@timthetaxman
"I agree the issues are complex and worthy of a dissertation length debate. It simply just can’t be done on digg." -- timthetaxman
---
I agree, the subject is complex and to be honest diving in to far would present at least on my side some contradictions, in terms of Gov reach pro/con. I do thank you for at least being able to communicate your stance on such an heavy issue, without resorting to knee-jerk style opinions and I respect the point of view, though disagree with some elements of it. I find it rare these days to find individuals [on digg] or in general society that are able to clearly justify the position they take and importantly understand it, thus truly support it. So please do not consider my reply an direct "attack" or snide smack in the face, we just have opposing ideals, My 1/2 cent view/opinion to the thread :-) at best.
---
"If you are interested in how a free society might work, I’d suggest you read “For a New Liberty” by Murray Rothbard. " -- timthetaxman
---
"For a New Liberty", its an excellent read for anyone interested in this subject, read it many moons ago [political science - minor].
I'll add to the book club :-)
*Anarchy, State, And Utopia - by Robert Nozick
*A New Blueprint for Change - by Amy Dean
*The Ethics of Liberty - by Murray Rothbard
*Democratic socialism: theory and practice - by Mihailo Markovic
*Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative-Libertarian Debate - by George Carey
*Towards Freedom: Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice - by Joseph Schwartz and Jason Schulman
-- best regards
comgenMar 10, 2011
"Why do you use the term statist?" -- ncmusic
I think timthetaxman [they - like-minds] mean Collectivism in place of statism, while both terms are often used to describe similar practices, they do have semi-polar opposite meanings when properly used and in context.....not sure though....never know with these guys - facts and moral compass tend to be way off. When describing the President per derogatory comment or intent, "Altruism" would be a better fit, since Obama is more in line with "Social" responsibility/issues, However, "Collectivism" is the better fit of such negative terminology (i.e. the GOP practices Individualism)
"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group (to "society," to the tribe, the state, the nation) and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force -- and statism has always been the poltical corollary of collectivism." -- Ayn Rand
"STATISM is that particular form of collectivism in which individuals are forced to be subservient to government (as distinguished, if possible, from a religious or cult leader, roving invader or local gangster). Anyone in government who wants to extend his power, or anyone else (who has political influence) with agendas to advance, monopolies to secure, axes to grind or revenge to take -- can make claims that certain governmental actions would be in the national, state, society or even family interest and must 'therefore' take precedence over any individual interests whatsoever. With this 'justification' the people in government can proceed to enforce such claims, often enthusiastically, sometimes brutally, but always with impunity." -- Rick Gaber
Altruism demands that an individual serve others, but doesn’t stipulate whether those others should be one’s family, or the homeless, or society as a whole. Collectivism states that, in politics, society comes first and the individual must obey. Collectivism is the application of the altruist ethics to politics." -- Dr. Andrew Bernstein
"Individualism is a concept which the advocates of most political systems try desperately to avoid. They'd prefer that political contests, debates and symposia were limited to answering loaded questions such as, 'WHICH type of powerful government should we have?', 'WHICH type of dictatorship do you tend to prefer?", 'WHAT KINDS of intrusiveness should government engage in?' and, 'WHICH type of control freaks are best suited to run your life for you?' ... They often get upset, even hysterical, if you point out that socialism, fascism, communism and mixed-economy welfare-states have a lot in common...." -- Rick Gaber
timthetaxmanMar 10, 2011
I honestly believe that generally speaking most politicians like Obama in a democracy are honest and are attempting to make the world better. The problem is that there are extreme moral issues when using a gun to make the world better. People don’t often agree on “better” and using a gun to force something to get “better” is tyrannical even when it is approved by the majority.
Moreover, you have the risk of the ends justifying the means. So much horror throughout history can be traced to people rationalizing evil because they think they can do good by using force. Evil people rarely think themselves so.
In a free society, there would be nothing stopping altruistic behavior, it would just be free of the gun part.
miklkitMar 10, 2011
So when are you going to start defending your republicon plan to slash 700,000 jobs?
norman619Mar 10, 2011
As soon as I get tired of doing my own thinking and join the Republican party I'll do that. I'm an independent. I like doing my own thinking instead of letting the party tell me what to think. I laugh everytime people like you assume if I'm not a Democrat/liberal I must be a Republican.
linuxpersonMar 10, 2011
Simple minded partisan hackery in action!
JustSayNoPartyMar 10, 2011
Exactly. I make that point all the time. We have to Break Out of the Two Dimensional thinking patterns.
bille3Mar 10, 2011
If they are going to cut 700,000 government jobs I am all for it. Way too much of the population are public employees.
JustSayNoPartyMar 10, 2011
I'm thinking cutting those 700K jobs Right Now may be foolish. Can we wait until the Unemployment numbers come down a tad?
sandylandersMar 10, 2011
They are not going to come down until the private sector starts hiring and they will not do so appreciably when they think a President is hostile to their interests.
friday1970Mar 11, 2011
Its funny to hear progressives whine about cleaning out the excesses of 700K of government jobs, but say nothing about how many jobs are lost if they drastically reduce military spending.
linuxpersonMar 10, 2011
700,000 unproductive money pits, that's all?
ganjadude4391Mar 10, 2011
does it really surprise you?? they dont have as plan
bille3Mar 11, 2011
The only plan is to make it look like they have a plan to appease the voters. It is still business as usual.
If there was real work going on in congress to resolve the economic crisis there would be massive outrage in MSM. Right now it is pretty much..ho..hum.
Closed AccountMar 10, 2011
love to see these well defined nuances
proposals by republicans = plain fraud;
by obama = wishful hope for a change.
o76923Mar 10, 2011
So our new goal isn't to make money or even break even. Our goal is to lose less money (relative to income) than we are losing now. Why can't we have someone with fiscal discipline (like Clinton?).
spuy767Mar 10, 2011
Clinton didn't really have fiscal discipline, don't forget, he was really bent on entitlements early in his first term, but his plans pissed off voters a LOT, and the showed him by electing a republican congress. It was less a matter of Clinton's fiscal discipline than it was him being hamstrung by have an opposition congress and it being a great time for America in general.
Closed AccountMar 10, 2011
under clinton we had a surplus, you can't argue with that.
bille3Mar 10, 2011
A surplus of borrowed money as opposed to eliminating debt was not a good thing. Clinton also ushered in the Enron Loophole and opened oil commodity trading to unenforced fraud and speculation.
goweigusMar 10, 2011
and people in the Middle East seemed much happier
Closed AccountMar 10, 2011
don't use terms and talk about things you don't understand.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_surplus_did_the_US_have_when_Clinton_left_office
Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.
Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
the national debt did go down.....
Closed AccountMar 10, 2011
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
boo and yah.
and don't even get me started on obama's spending vs clintons.
bobcat7407Mar 15, 2011
Interesting how they claim the budget was balanced and the deficit erased, but the national debt never actually went down.
FTA:"So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus"
I think there reliance on the CBO math is the problem, or they just never checked with the Treasury Department to verify their numbers.
oboyMar 10, 2011
The Barack oBudget.
thejumboMar 10, 2011
I can't wait to give the government even MORE of my money - they've done such a wonderful job handling it so far!
Stop forcing me to fund programs that don't work! Let me keep more of what I EARN, and I will voluntarily help people the way I see fit!
Go away, big government - stay out of my wallet, stay out of a woman's uterus, stay out of marriage, stay away from baseball, and stop penalizing those of us who work harder!
ikorkyiMar 10, 2011
stop forcing me to fund wars that don't work and suddenly we have a surplus
you can't say that about anything else our government does.
linuxpersonMar 10, 2011
You shouldn't be forced to fund wars that you don't agree with, but even without ANY of the defense spending there is still a massive deficit to deal with.
Face it, this problem is much larger than "defense" spending.
monvalleyMar 10, 2011
You're right; and i shouldn't be forced to fund social programs i don't agree with.
linuxpersonMar 10, 2011
You shouldn't be forced to fund anything that you don't use or directly benefit from. Violent coercion against peaceful people who have done no wrong is immoral.
ratherstupidMar 10, 2011
This is violent coercion? You're funny.
linuxpersonMar 10, 2011
You've been a member since 06/12/08, with only have 7 diggs and 100 comments, yet my comment compelled you to login, bury me, and reply?
I smell liberal Digg Patriot sock puppets on this thread!
And yes, threatening to use violence against somebody because they don't want to pay for something that they do not use or benefit from is violent coercion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdbrMar 10, 2011
These are actually listed in the budget separately from DoD as "overseas contingency operations". This year it is $160 billion. Granted, that's a lot of money, but the deficit is $1,645 billion. Not even close to a surplus.
Still it's an area that needs to be drawn down, particularly since they blow the budget in grand fashion every year. Last year they projected $50 billion for 2012; the upcoming budget requests $126.5 billion.
chefgroovyMar 11, 2011
Agree, Obama's wars have got to end and soon. Why is he still in Afghanistan?
linuxpersonMar 10, 2011
You want to voluntarily help people? That's f**king disgusting! The Federal government is the most efficient and well run organization on Earth, they know how to spend your money better than any private charity -- the statistics show it.
And if you resist, I will gladly watch as the state violently assaults or murders you and your peaceful family. I'll also demand that you be placed into a cage for wanting to voluntarily help people, you sick demented Rethugilicon!
bille3Mar 10, 2011
LOL
mrspookypantsMar 10, 2011
The article is very misleading. He's not actually cutting the deficit, just making it grow at a slower pace. Instead of adding 6 trillion to existing deficit, he's only going to at 5 trillion and increase total government spending by a trillion dollars over the next 6 years. How is that reducing our debt again?
ratherstupidMar 10, 2011
There's debt and there's deficit. You're simply confusing the two. Its not misleading. He's reducing the deficit each year. Not the debt accrued.
He's not adding "6 trillion to the deficit".. but to the debt. I'm not saying this is right or wrong but that your interpretation is wrong.
bcm79Mar 10, 2011
I can't wait to see what this looks like in a few years. Considering our track record since Bill Clinton left office, it's going to be an entertaining year or two before any budget really manages to stick.
Whoever wins the budget-battle short term, they've got to stop tugging the steering wheel long enough for the car to drive straight before we can tell what direction anything is going.
devnulldoodMar 10, 2011
Did I miss the part where he is "slashing the deficit?"
linuxpersonMar 10, 2011
$1.1 trillion over a decade? That's insane, we need cuts 10x more drastic to come anywhere near a balanced budget.
ratherstupidMar 10, 2011
Right. You can cut the deficit to zero through reduced spending and taxes but until we increase revenue to a point over what we spend we won't put a dent in the debt.
Your math skills amaze.
treebaneMar 10, 2011
Ummm.... okay, I kinda see what you are saying but won't reducing spending to the point of revenue do the same thing? And, if spending is reduced below current revenue then wouldn't debt start to come down? (once the interest threshold is met)
ratherstupidMar 10, 2011
Right. Like I said... revenue must be > spending.
linuxpersonMar 11, 2011
"Right. You can cut the deficit to zero through reduced spending and taxes but until we increase revenue to a point over what we spend we won't put a dent in the debt."
Eliminating the deficit via spending cuts would result in revenue that exceeds expenditure. That's the entire point of eliminating the deficit, to create a surplus.
Your ignorance amaze.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ratherstupidMar 11, 2011
Your original post talks about having a balanced budget. A balanced budget has neither a deficit nor a surplus and is neutral towards the existing debt. Also, the "point of eliminating a deficit" is not necessarily to create a surplus. Its to eliminate the deficit. A lack of a deficit does not mean a surplus.
Your original statement being wrong does not make my reply ignorant.
linuxpersonMar 11, 2011
No, my original post talks about the need to cut more to ever achieve a balanced budget.
And treebane is echoing my same sentiment here. Cutting spending can balance the budget.
ratherstupidMar 11, 2011
Yes. I also agree with that statement.
You're talking about balancing a budget. That's all fine and dandy but I'm pointing out that a balanced budget won't reduce your debt.
A BALANCED BUDGET DOES NOTHING TO THE DEBT.
A balanced budget means that for that fiscal year you did not have a surplus or a deficit. You cannot apply a non-existent surplus to a debt.
Not spending more money on a credit card won't reduce your balance if you only pay the interest.
linuxpersonMar 11, 2011
"A BALANCED BUDGET DOES NOTHING TO THE DEBT."
Please show me where I stated otherwise. You are putting words into my mouth.
Now kindly calm down and take a chill pill.
ratherstupidMar 11, 2011
Please point out where i said you stated otherwise?
We're having a miscommunication. I agree that reducing spending could, in theory, get to a surplus.
However, your original post spoke of a balanced budget. By definition this is not a surplus. My response to that was that a balanced budget would not deal with debt. This was an independent thought from the "spending reductions lead to a balanced budget" one.
People should be concerned with the debt.. not the deficit.
PS. Caps does not mean I'm overly excited. You just appeared to be missing the point of everything I was saying so I decided to emphasize :) Oh if only I could use italics.
linuxpersonMar 11, 2011
Your ability to maintain cohesive discussion is a little too limited for me, sorry. You took what a said and totally misconstrued it, good job!
jacksons98Mar 10, 2011
Probably using the same math he used for healthcare
monvalleyMar 10, 2011
He can't fool me, I see it in his eyes. He is not slashing the deficit and you all know it.
Closed AccountMar 10, 2011
maybe if you don't just moon the valley and get brave enough to show your front ?
bille3Mar 10, 2011
It is all about economic destabilization and it is working quite well.
As the FED keeps printing new money the dollar will finally begin to fall.
ratherstupidMar 10, 2011
Reading these comments makes me think a lot of you should learn the difference between the deficit and the debt.
laurahoustonMar 10, 2011
not enough to increase corporate revenue by a couple percent over 10 years. Yet allow the same 'subsities to remain they have 'enoyed' for over 100 years!
I would like to see more drastic rollbacks/cuts on whatever the Bush/Cheaney gang started giving away to their buddies over their 8 years.
That's what got America into the ruin today..that what will stop the bleedout.
Drastic- like freeze the entire DOI and go over every federal funds payout of the corporate welfare.
It was fine 100 years ago to allow a cattle rancher to graze his 100 cattle 'free' on public lands.....it is not fine for the entire foreign beef industry businesses to graze 5 million cattle 'free' today. And at a loss of billions of federal funds(taxpayer money!) to subidise them!
312139Mar 10, 2011
All of a sudden, the Teapers/whiners are fiscal experts, somehow thinking that we have ever, EVER eliminated our federal debt....How long will it take them to realize the debt is 234 years old? I guess they'll conveniently remember that when one of their own runs the country.
ZennethzMar 10, 2011
another budge for another deduction to taxes?
scarlsonMar 10, 2011
The problem I have here is that DoD is considered discretionary while entitlement programs are considered mandatory and, while I concede that DoD needs to make cuts along with everything else... I don't see anything but an increase in spending on entitlement programs and in an increase in taxes to pay for it.
jamesplatteborzeMar 11, 2011
James Platteborze viewed this Article.