news.yahoo.com — President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable.
Mar 21, 2009 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountMar 21, 2009
But I thought Geithner said the deficit was going to be cut in half in four years.Hmmm . . . let's see what Obama's pick for Commerce Secretary had to say about that claim.---In his opening statement, Gregg politely called the administration's budget forecast a lie."The argument that it cuts the debt in half in four years is, ahh, is truly spurious," he told Geithner.<a class="user" href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/12/1833945.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/12/ ...</a>
clvngodessMar 21, 2009
Well, paper and ink anyway. Remember, it's not really money. It's an idea. It doesn't exist until there's debt.
abehammy111Mar 23, 2009
Wow, half of the people who are bitching against Obama also don't have much knowledge about the economy.
doughproMar 23, 2009
I see they really don't teach economics in school anymore. These dolts have no idea. @Spade85:Perhaps you should look at the actual numbers spent on the Iraq war compared to what BO wants to spend. Perhaps you should look at how the stimulus is doing nothing to help the economy, since our economy is not set up to sustain bailouts. Perhaps you should stop and think about how this unprecedented amount of debt that BO is dumping on us could be called on at any moment, should China decide that it wants the oil that the environmental whackos want us to sit on instead of drill for. Better learn to speak Chinese, sucker.
doughproMar 23, 2009
Yes, "useful stuff". Like more money for the corrupt group ACORN, and to keep financial institutions afloat so that the US sectors of the institution can hand it over to the foreign sectors. So that Bank of America can incur millions upon millions of credit card debt from illegal aliens, and make it "disappear". So that companies can keep investing in the worthless "green" sectors of their businesses that nobody really believes in anymore. Do I need to go on? Just admit that you voted for an ignorant dope who thinks our downword spiral is something to chuckle about. Teleprompter! Where the hell were you yesterday?
ceeayyMar 25, 2009
Actually ZZeke, I agree with you. Party politics are a waste of everyone's time. Don't make the assumption that sheeplescareme is making about me. I don't believe that criticism of one is the same as support of the other. I just happen to read many of his comments and came to the conclusion that he is pro-McCain. I'm sure that you have seen comments by me before and you may have a decent idea of where I am coming from. I am not into party politics. I don't swear allegiance to any party. That's silly. It's the same thing with sheeplescareme... I've read many posts by him and I have come to that conclusion about him. I disagree with the majority of what he posts and I am confident in what I stated because of what I read by him.Now, please notice ZZeke, not once did he state that he wasn't pro-McCain. He chose to complain about my assumption, but didn't choose to correct me. Could I be wrong? Sure! But I doubt that when it comes to him. If you state something about me I am likely to correct you. He didn't do that. What he chose to do was effective, but it didn't really address my statement about him really.@sheeplescaremeIf you deem it worth your time... address what I said... did you support McCain? It really doesn't matter, just like your non support of Barack doesn't matter, but tell me I'm wrong or just be honest. In an election with two candidates... if you don't support one it is not a leap to say that you supported the other. Considering the fact that you made it a point of stating that you didn't support him, unless you didn't vote, you obviously supported the other candidate.
ceeayyMar 25, 2009
ne0shellStating the FACT that he didn't create the current economy is just an excuse? You are blaming him for something that he is not responsible for. Follow me for a second... If he has been in office for about two months and you have an $1800 utility bill in the second month... that means he was in control of things before he actually took office by your logic. That's not logical. You're not making sense here. Besides that, you aren't even presenting any evidence to back up your wacky claims. Get your head out of your ass, that's not the helmet that people are telling you to put on to get in the game. At least make some sense if you are going to make baseless claims. At least I'll know that you thought about what you posted before you actually submitted it.As for my informed opinion... yup, just as informed as yours, maybe more. I actually own guns and I actually train with guns. I know exactly what goes on in a gunfight. Training every once in a while at a shooting range is not going to cut it, so yes, it is an unnecessary program. It will only give the illusion of making people safer, just like the current airport security checks. You just keep thinking that the next attack is going to come from a shoe bomber. You're safer now, they checked everyones shoes. Did you take your head out of your ass yet? lol. Maybe that's why your breathe stinks. lol.As for the spending, notice that you couldn't refute what I said... Where did you get your numbers? Like I said before, you are making up a lot of what you posted or you are getting your info from some other uninformed tool. That's actually beside the point though. Spending is not bad in and of itself. It just depends on how you spend the money. BTW, everyone in Washington and most economists agree that we need to spend money to get out of the current situation. How do you then complain that too much money is being spent when most economists believe that we need to spend more than we are currently spending? When did you get to be smarter than most of the economists on the economy? You're not.Also, notice how you couldn't refute what I said about the pilots... He didn't disarm even one pilot. Like I said... you are making up most of what you posted.It might seem cool to disrespect the President and say how bad he is, but leave it to the professionals. You apparently don't know what you are doing.As for breaking Bush's record spending... again... it's not just how much he spends, but what it is spent on. Bush spent it on tax cuts for the rich. Obama isn't. Since that is the case, what are you really complaining about? If he is actually able to reduce the deficit, which no expert is disputing that he will be able to do with his current budget plans... it doesn't really matter how much he plans to spend. To put it in simpler terms for the simpletons, I'm looking at you ne0shell, if you earn more than you spend then you are on the right track. If what you spend the money on actually brings in more money, then you are doing even better. Thus endeth the lesson grasshopper."...Bush shouldn't have given in to the Democrats who pushed for and passed the first bail out bill. Bush did not pass a "stimulus bill", he signed into law a "bail out". The Republicans at least put on a show of not wanting to begin bailing out the banks...."Ok, now here you are just getting into semantics. I don't care what you want to call it. The fact remains... Bush was responsible for the first trillion that was spent on what was then termed the bailout. Bailout sounded horrible so the name was changed. Understand? No? Ok, no matter... Just remember... he was responsible for the first trillion. Did you hear or see the furor that exists now? No. Why? Because in the end it was deemed necessary by all involved. The funny thing is that most of Washington still sees a bailout as necessary yet the Republicans are fighting this thing tooth and nail, except they still want the money being doled out... typical. lol.As for Bush giving in to the Democrats... wow... talking about living in fantasy land. Democrats have been ineffective in the minority and are equally ineffective in the majority. Bush was not bullied by Democrats. Do you really believe that? Even in the minority, republicans are shining the floor with Democrats. anyway... moving on.Now, in the end is where you get to the talking point section of your program... again... do you read what you post. Let's begin...Tax and spend... lol. That's a funny one to lump on Democrats considering how a Republican created the largest budget deficit in the entire history of the US. Did he do that by being frugal? Did he not spend money on tax cuts? What do we have to show for all the money that Bush spent? Oh, that's right... less than nothing because we have the biggest hole in history to get out of because of him. And tax... do you even begin to understand how our government works? Taxes are necessary. Not all taxes are good, but they are necessary. In the end it all amounts to simple math. We need to take in more money than we spend. In recent history, Republicans run up deficits and Democrats bring them down. You'll never learn that if you don't get your head out of your ass... lol. Maybe that's how you keep your ears warm. Unfortunately it also means that you don't hear anything to learn anything. Oh well.As for promises broken... let's do this... since you say that he has broken EVERY promise, why not make a list and prove me wrong. Or... you can post a link if you can find one. Wait, there isn't one. There is a link showing that he has kept MOST of his promises but there doesn't seem to be a link to show that he has broken all of his promises. Fail. Please try again.Now, as for the biggest assumption you have made... He is not actually my first choice in President. My guy was out of the race almost from the beginning. I just know that he is a much better choice than McCain. I just know that he is the only President we have at the moment. You seem to think that there is going to be a special election and he'll be kicked out of office. Good luck on that one. Let me know how that works out for you.As for hating Bush.... I don't hate him. I actually feel bad for him. Actually, in all seriousness, that's true. I honestly believe that he thought that he was doing the right thing. He just happens to be crazy, stubborn, not too bright, and wrong. That's a bad combination. So, hate him, no. I just think that he caused a lot of damage to this country. As a matter of fact, I don't just think it, I know it. If he was actually effective do you think a Democrat would have won the White House? No. He was one of the worst Presidents ever. Not the worst, but one of the worst. Hate has nothing to do with that. Are you actually suggesting that he was a good President? Wow... If I posted the reasons why he was bad, I might not get any sleep tonight! Please tell me that you don't think he was good. Actually, please don't even suggest that he was even competent. I'd "hate" to lose the small amount of respect that I have for you.BTW, you really think that my"... ignorance and ... hatred of "Bush" are the worst thing to happen to our country in our entire history..." Really? And here I was thinking the worst thing was a President whose job it is to protect The Constitution stating that it is just a piece of paper. Here I was thinking that it was a war started based on lies and deceit. Here I was thinking that it was a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich facilitated by the Commander in Chief. Here I was thinking that it was the POTUS who stated that he would get the person(s) responsible for the attack by any means necessary but then later stating that he wasn't all that interested in completing that job. Somehow other things became more important. hmmmm... you have strange logic indeed. Maybe you should get your mouth off Bush's c**k. You're words and thinking just might be a little clearer. Imjussayin.
ozel01Mar 25, 2009
@CeeAyy: No, you and the previous poster fail to understand more than the tip of your nose. Certainly massive injections of cash into the system NOW will have some positive benifit in the SHORT term. However, in the LONG term (looking at more than the tip of your nose), when the system catches up, we will enter a period of stifling INFLATION. However, that will only happen if, and only if, the massive injections actually work. If they fail, we will be bankrupt. Very rosy future prospects either way you care to look at it.
wrrockMar 26, 2009
Watch this south park episode on the deficit:<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/political_opinion/South_Park_Mocks_Obama_by_Illustrating_Who_Really_Makes" rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/political_opinion/South_Park_Mocks ...</a>
buzzfriendlyJul 10, 2009
So that's 4.4 trillion more in seven months. What is your point?
rosebyseaAug 22, 2009
A trillion here and a trillion there. Cant wait for the tax bill to hit each and everyone of you in the ass that's if you still even have a job this time next year. Bill Maher had it right, Americans are stupid.. Obama has quadrupled the budget deficit in six months over Bush's six years and it somehow OK WITH YOU PEOPLE???? WTF!