OT: Interesting Debt Comparisons

Page 5 of 6  


Then since we're currently spending 40% MORE than under Bush, the economy should be really humming. Yet, here we are 3 years into Obama's economic plan and the economy is still just barely moving.

Back to the "anti-terrorist spending spree". Yes additional money was spent on defending the country after 911. We know you libs would just have sent Bin Laden a cake and called it a day. Yet with that spending, in 2007 we only had a deficit of $160bil and it had been steadily DECLINING. And yet right now, we're running a $1.6tril deficit and spending has jumped 40% since 2007. It's gone from $2.7tril to $3.7 tril. Unless you're gonna claim that the TSA materialized in 2008, as did the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, trying to pin out of control spending on 911 has no merit.

Paying for it? What rope are you smoking? We're not paying down the debt. The USA is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent. Back in 2007, with the TSA and TWO wars, we were only borrowing 6 cents of every dollar.

Booms and busts have occured and will continue to occur throughout history. If the govt is so smart at preventing them, where was Barney Frank and his committee that had oversight on Fannie and Freddie? He proclaimed them basicly OK just weeks before they collapsed. I guess he has a big hard-on, eh?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wish we could always be the high-minded altruistic people we should be. Syria is a different country than Libya, AFAIK. While there may be similarities, the differences are important. Also, the "war" in Libya didn't go by far as smoothly as originally anticipated (my interpretation of events, and how long they took). Getting bogged down in a much bigger country with many more and very highly populated cities is not where you'd want to fight a war. Whether Libya was just about the oil for Europe, I'm not sure, but there is definitely that aspect. And slogans are just that. In any case, I am glad that this war in Libya was a proxy war, and also that the US could supply the air power and control that made it possible for the ragtag army of the "rebels" to win.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I could easily be convinced that Assad is a bad guy. No problem. He probably feeds Hamas and Hezbollah. Case closed. But Khadafi wasn't a real darling either. I seem to remember an "accident" with a PanAm plane over Scotland. Regarding an uprising in Iran, that'll come after the current crop of insane mullahs die off. Analogy with Soviet Union and Red China, who both are still dictatorial, but in essence capitalist nowadays.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You need convincing? Just look at the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Case closed.  But Khadafi wasn't a

That is true. But Kadafi in more recent years renounced terrorism. He had cooperated with the international community regarding WMDs and dismantled his atomic program. The uranium was shipped to the USA. As a result, Libya was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Does that make up for his past? No. But given that he was behaving exactly as the West wanted him to, it's particularly ironic that Obama sought to take him out while refusing to do the same with Assad. In other words, we have no consistent or rational foreign policy.
You can see that in our approach to Iran. A couple weeks ago Leon Panetta gave CBS an interview where he said Iran is further along in developing a bomb than we previously thought and that if they decided to assemble a bomb they could probably have one in a year. He said if we knew they decided to do that, the US would unilateraly take action to eliminate the threat.
At the same time, we're running around trying to round up more world support to take varying actions against Iran, mostly sanctions, because of the threat they pose.
Now just a couple of weeks later you have ImaNutJob, president of Iran, giving a press tour of their newest enrichment facility. That night on the news you have the state dept and other administration experts pooh pooing the whole thing, saying it's really nothing new, they aren't all that far along, etc.
So, which is it? It's time Obama and his administration make up their mind.

I see no evidence that one crazy mullah won't be replaced by the next. And unless something changes, the current ones will have the bomb before long. I've been waiting for the Obama speech to the nation:
"As you all know, despite the best efforts of the US and our allies, last night Iran tested a nuclear weapon....."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have the distinct impression that is occurring perhaps a bit more behind the scenes than you (and I) would have hoped. No ground troops, indeed.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, it's obviously working real well. Tell that to the 10,000 dead and the city of Homs being shelled. The rebels in Libya got NATO airpower. In Syria, Obama can't even give words? And the really sad part is the liberal Obama loving media isn't even asking the questions I've raised.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now you're just throwing words around. Maybe that embassy in Syria has helped foment the current revolt. But let's not pound our breasts for that, or we might be attacked by real fascist leftists (Assad and Russia).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Inflation happens when there are too many dollars chasing too few products. Right now people are too afraid to spend so there is no chasing. Watch out when that changes. Gasoline *will* be $10/gallon, like your boy wants.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have the same fears, but a slightly different solution. The Bush tax cuts were an abomination. Under Reagan the tax rates were even higher. Somehow, conservative minds should realize that rates have to go up from what they are now. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be spending cuts were appropriate. Lets figure out where the greatest spending increases occurred, which of those can most easily be diminshed, and for which increases in spending we should compensate with tax increases, after we close some loopholes. I would personally "suffer" if capital gains were taxed higher and charitable and other deductions were limited, but maybe that should happen.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The main problem with tax increases is that they are institutionalized in law with an enforcement mechanism. On spending there is no way that the current Congress (even assuming they COULD control spending) can have any impact on the next. If there was a way to make sure the spending cuts would take place, I would be a lot more sanguine about tax increases.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then we need a mechanism to make congresscritters responsible for what happens 2 or 5 years hence. I don't know how to do that. But I agree that in years past they were able to adjust social security stuff to at least postpone problems. The same things SHOULD be done now again for SS Medi****, taxes and spending. However, (on both sides) standing rigorously on campaign stances isn't useful.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't see it as a campaign stance. I see it as defending liberty. Just as this country was founded to get away from tyranny from the British, today we're slowing allowing govt to take away our freedom. Each year the average American winds up working more days to pay for govt that has gotten too large. Many of us recognize it as the biggest threat today to our freedom. Not only does it result in us becoming serfs of the state, more govt meand more govt involvement in controlling everything we do. Witness how Obamacare is now impacting Catholic charities for example.
Taxes are NOT the problem. The federal govt took in more money last year than ever before in history. Out of control spending is the problem.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I can't disagree more. It is male catholic hierarchy among other male religious organizations who want to usurp power and claim that religious freedom is challenged. Nothing is further from the truth. Secular law needs to trump religious law at all instances. Otherwise, sharia law will soon be instituted and that is something neither you nor I want. If there were true religious freedom involved the religious crowd should be able to get some women to testify on their behalf. The regrettable fact that the religious powers are so out of touch with their flock that almost all women disregard the edicts of the top of the male church is proof enough. Freedom is a personal thing. If you prohibit choice from among the employees by taking the possibility of choice away, then you (whatever crowd you stands for) are the tyranny. And don't say that then they shouldn't work for a catholic charity, because those charities do a lot of good, and perhaps those women like to contribute to that.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First one I've seen express what I've been thinking. Too bad the talking heads don't have the balls to call these Republicans what they are. American Taliban.
--Vic
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Guess you haven't friended me on FB. I've been vocal there.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Religious freedom is challenged when govt tells free people that they have to spend their money on funding for abortion and birth control. This is exactly what you get from the big govt that you liberals want. The more govt programs, mandates you have, the more it intrudes on all our freedoms.
If I'm a Catholic, running a charity or business and I don't want to spend my money on something against my religion, the Constitution says I do not have to. Ultimately, we'll get that ruling from the Supreme Court if we need to. It will just be one more needless lawsuit. Can you point to any other administration that has so many lawsuits being brought by STATES against the federal govt? We have 20 something states suing over Obamacare. We have AZ, LA suing over immigration enforcement. Now TX and various religous groups will be suing over this latest outrage.
And you can damn well bet this. Just imagine if it were some govt progam than mandated pork and bacon be served and the govt told Muslims organizations they must serve it. Then you liberals would be all up in arms.

Oh, please. This is just a total non-sequitor that's beyond stupid.
 >If

Who exactly is taking any testimony at this point? If it's needed, plenty of women will be available. How many women does it take for the Constitution to apply? By my book, even 1 is enough. That's all it takes for the ACLU to find to bring some lawsuit claiming a big violation of freedom. Funny though, they seem to be absent unless it's a leftist angle. But in this case, you're now arguing that unless there are waves of women protesting, it's OK to trample constitutional rights, because, well, it just doesn't matter.....
 >The regrettable fact

Whether they are out of touch in your view has nothing to do with the issue.
 >Freedom is a personal thing.  If you prohibit choice from

Unbelievable. No one is prohibiting choice. If those women want birth control, it isn't expensive and they can pay for it themselves as they are doing today. Or they can go get it for FREE from any number of sources. And yeah, if they don't like that, they can go work somewhere with a different health plan. The Catholic charity should be the one that determines that, because it's within the scope of their religous freedom. It's their organization, their money, their religous beliefs. It's not for you to dictate what kind of healthcare they need to offer. The Catholic institutions clearly don't believe not paying for birth control has hindered their ability to function in any way.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just reminding you that some 20 states already have mandatory birth control insurance and catholic institutions have complied.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you're a little confused here. Those states do not have mandatory birth control insurance. AFAIK, what they have are laws that say if an employer CHOOSES to offer PRESECRIPTION coverage, then they have to include birth control coverage. So, AFAIK, any employer is free to have a health insurance plan without prescription coverage. Or they could have no insurance.
I also don't believe it would be hard to find Catholic institutions in those states that are not offering prescription coverage, probably as a result of the law.
Another example of where all this big govt meddling gets you is this. Perhaps you can explain to us why it is OK that Obama declares war on the Catholic church, but at the same time has freely handed out wavers from Obamacare to nearly 2000 others? You know, businesses like the expensive steak house in San Francisco, unions, etc. Under Obamacare they can just do whatever they please. Which is exactly the kind of tyranny you get when you demand more govt.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
too REALLY cut spending entitlements like social security and medicare MUST BE CUT.
Thats the 3rd rail of the government, cut it and die...
As long as congress is bought and paid for by PACs and re election stuff there is no hope.
Special interests buy congress and give the reps money to get re elected. only the super wealthy have the bucks, which is why the middle class is being wiped out
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a lie. Not *that* much has changed since 2007, except government spending.
<trite leftist crap snipped>
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.