Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Let's see...

$1.2 T deficet (this year) / 350 M Americans...

$34,000. That's a nice car.

Obama just cut $100,000,000! / 350 M Americans...

OK, a nice car without a cupholder.

You people are insane.

I weep for the future.

<deleted post>

Freakzilla wrote:Let's see...

$1.2 T deficet (this year) / 350 M Americans...

$34,000. That's a nice car.

Obama just cut $100,000,000! / 350 M Americans...

OK, a nice car without a cupholder.

You people are insane.

I weep for the future.

The irony is that $1.2 trillion deficit is mostly being used to prop up a capitalist system that undermined itself... If Obama were really a socialist, he would have let the banks fail, or just nationalized all of them.

Also, in 2009 dollars, you know what else cost about a trillion dollars? The Federal highway system. One of the best investments in American history(also, an act of complete SOCIALISM).

Let's also consider for a moment that the U.S. GDP is 13.84 trillion dollars, and that deficit doesn't seem as bad...

It doesn't seem like capitolism to keep the banks afloat (or the automakers or anyone else) with government money to me.

It seems they should have let them fail. Why keep a business that can run itself going?

The Congress' own financial commitee said we'd have been better off doing nothing than spending more money.

Phaedrus wrote:
The irony is that $1.2 trillion deficit is mostly being used to prop up a capitalist system that undermined itself... If Obama were really a socialist, he would have let the banks fail, or just nationalized all of them.

Also, in 2009 dollars, you know what else cost about a trillion dollars? The Federal highway system. One of the best investments in American history(also, an act of complete SOCIALISM).

Let's also consider for a moment that the U.S. GDP is 13.84 trillion dollars, and that deficit doesn't seem as bad...

banned for posting rational & balanced ideas in the POLITICS! forum ....

Can I get in this?

Phaedrus you are brilliant.

FZ I see your points, you do make me think of the other side.

Baraka your small c is more of a big C but still do you think the grits would have bailed out the auto makers?

Baraka Bryan wrote:

SwordMaster wrote:Can I get in this?

Phaedrus you are brilliant.

FZ I see your points, you do make me think of the other side.

Baraka your small c is more of a big C but still do you think the grits would have bailed out the auto makers?

I think so. though iggy keeps flopping around like a fish out of water (academic out of classroom?) with no real sense of direction.

I am fairly sure they would not have bailed out the auto companies but you never know. Our current leader seems to be having some difficulty in the real world of politics. He knew how to mess with Mr. Dion but he cant seem to bring the party towards any real opposition, fish out of water is a good metaphore.

But I really doubt any party including those pinko NPD would have bailed out these auto makers.

The funny thing about all this shit, bailouts aside it does nothing to address the issue of manufacturing being DEAD in North America (Mexico aside)

The fact is China is pwning the global econ with their slave labor wages and unfair price manipulation and their currency being adjusted to give them a global trade advantage. Bail outs do not change this fact and I have yet to hear any politician provide even suggest a solution to this issue. Without manufacturing, most econs go down the tubes, eventually you run out of raw resources and commodities.

In fact, we talk about these banks, sure they fucked us up and fucked up America's econ, but the larger issue, is China and their strangle hold on the manufacturing industry on a global scale.

People are saving more money that was put into the economy with the stimulus (not that it was ever really a stimulus) according to April statistics. People are too scared to spend money.

Looks like Ole John Murtha (D) has been funneling tens of millions in defense earmarks to his drug dealing campaign contributors.

Business as usual in Washington...

White House, CBO see budget deficits for years ahead

By Alister Bull and Andy Sullivan Alister Bull And Andy Sullivan – 1 hr 49 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. national debt will nearly double over the next 10 years as recession crimps government revenue while spending on retirement and medical benefits soars, official forecasts said on Tuesday.

But an estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office took a somewhat more optimistic view of the fiscal funding gap than a separate White House midsession budget forecast, which projected a cumulative $9 trillion deficit between 2010 and 2019.

CBO's judgment pegged this number almost $2 trillion lower, at $7.1 trillion, because it assumed higher tax revenues.

The national debt now stands at more than $11 trillion.

However, both estimates anticipate a relatively swift decline in the size of the deficit in the years immediately ahead, on the basis of a return to growth in 2010, as the worst U.S. recession since the Great Depression comes to an end.

White House budget director Peter Orszag said the deficit was too high and cited this as a reason to pass President Barack Obama's healthcare reform, which is in trouble with lawmakers while opinion polls show it losing popular support.

"I know that there will be some who say this report proves that we cannot afford health reform. I think that has it backward," Orszag told reporters on a conference call.

"The size of the fiscal gap is precisely why we must enact well-designed and fiscally responsible health reform now."

Obama's central policy priority of overhauling the U.S. healthcare system has already run into opposition from angry from critics who complain its $1 trillion pricetag is too high and who worry it will limit choice.

NEAR-TERM FORECASTS SIMILAR

The White House forecasts a $1.58 trillion deficit in fiscal 2009, matching the numbers of the CBO, while it has the deficit at $1.5 trillion in 2010, a touch higher than the $1.48 trillion projected by CBO.

One reason CBO and OMB can end up with different numbers is technical. The CBO employs a baseline method which only takes into account policies that have already become law.

On the other hand, the administration's forecasts can reflect the economic impact of policies it hopes to implement, even if they have not yet been approved by lawmakers.

Critics claim this means it can brush up its numbers to make them look better, even if the chances that it can get its full policy agenda through Congress is remote.

For example, the CBO assumes the there would be no "patch" for the Alternative Minimum Tax, meaning millions more Americans would have to pay higher taxes, even though Congress has agreed a temporary reprieve every year to prevent this happening. In addition, CBO assumes the tax cuts delivered by President George W Bush will expire at the end of 2010.

Orszag said that the White House numbers also assumed that some of the Bush tax cuts would be extended. Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on U.S. households earning less than $250,000 a year.