Four percent is not what I'd call "robust." For example, China's GDP has been increasing in the neighborhood of 8% for some time. So, assuming a 6% growth for the US and a cutback of current expenditures to the pre-Obama level, just a quick back-of-the envelope calculation shows we could make a slightly less than $1 trillion reduction of the debt each year.
Slight correction: Romney (and the Republicans) said we WILL make it better. It was the Democrats who said we CAN make it better. A subtle, but crucial, difference.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rubbish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- More Rubbish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- More Rubbish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- More Rubbish.
You forgot the subsidities for the energy industries, the agriculture subsidities including price supports for sugar, etc.
It would appear that your real bitch is you don't qualify for some type of assistance.
Lew
I won't swear to this, but IIRC we spend more than the next 7(?) countries combined and twice as much as the next highest. Seems to me to be a bit more than required.
--------------------------------------- I heard it was 17, not 7; however, also not confirmed.
What is also overlooked is the basic research the military supports.
Internet, GPS, etc, etc.
Lew
True that there was some editing, but the fact that many actually agreed to the idea without hesitation is truly scary. And your right, our glourious leader has made profit and success four letter words.
Exactly and the national debt has more than doubled since the social democrats took control of congress in 2006.
In six years they have not faced the problem and passed a budget as required by the Constitution. Some say budgets are worthless BUT only with an overall budget will you know where your money is going, so real cuts can be made.
I believe in the coming election there is one big factor that has been missed.
That factor can be summed up in Michelle's response when obama was elected. She said that that was the first time in her life when she was proud of America. (You can check this statement in the news archives)
The whole Republican convention was; we are proud of America, We know We are capable of great things, and We can make it better. ( Notice there was no mention of establishing more government for the purpose.)
It is my believe that people will respond more to a positive attitude than the negative attitude expressed by the social democrats.
People will respond to a person who says that in America you can go as far as your capabilities will carry you, and believe the American dream is not, as obama said a few weeks ago, to get a job that will support your family with out the fear of loosing that job and putting you and your family in poverty. It is human nature to want the best not something that is adequate to keep you out of poverty.
Who would you vote for someone who said your success is dependent on your abilities and you can go as far as you are willing to work for, or one that say there is nothing you can do about present state, and the reason you are suffering is the government has not done enough for you. ================================================================== There are a hell of a lot of people that want every thing but won't put the effort into it. They vote for those that say they will give them something for nothing rather than someone who says to work for it. The Democrats have a heavy stake in keeping the poor poor and keeping racism alive. That way, they have something to "save" people from. They are nothing without a "victim".
"Nova" wrote:
Agreed, but the article cites the data provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The Republican controlled House has passed budgets. The Gimmecrat contrlled Senate is the group who rejected them, largely because there was not enouge Gimme in them.
" Historically, from 1947 until 2012, the United States GDP Growth Rate averaged 3.25 Percent ..."
You couldn't be more wrong. I'll be generous. Assume a current U.S. gross national product of $15 trillion (that's high), a current federal debt of $16 trillion (from news reports, that's pretty much spot on), a starting federal budget of $3 trillion (an unrealistic rollback to 2008 levels, but you assumed it so let's use it), a 2% annual increase in federal spending (that''s low), a starting tax revenue of $2.3 trillion, a 4% annual growth in GNP, and that the federal government collects through taxes 15% of the increase in GNP. At the end of 10 years, the federal budget would increase to about $3.66 trillion and federal revenue would increase to about $3.38 trillion, reducing the annual deficit from $700 billion to $280 billion, but also increasing the federal debt by $5.6 trillion to over $21.6 trillion. If the U.S. pays
2% on the debt, the annual interest on the federal debt would have gone from $320 billion to over 430 billion; $90 billion of the increased revenue would go to service the increased interest on debt, taking a huge chunk of the increased federal revenue from a growing economy.
I'd sure like to get the alcohol out of my gas tank.
And with a corn shortage?
Who is john Galt?
You mean a real budget?
like 2012 maybe?
Whatever it is, it isn't enough.
There are troubles in the world that it's up to the U.S. For example, the public transit fares just doubled in Singapore and, for some reason, farmers in Sri Lanka are not growing enough potatoes. I even heard of a cat being shaved in Egypt.
It's up to us to sort all this out.
I'd sure like to get the alcohol out of my gas tank.
And with a corn shortage?
Who's gift to Big-Ag was that anyway? Wasn't that just one of W's gifts to corporate America?
Dave in Texas
Love it :-).
By definition, half of the people are of below average intelligence - how far will their "abilities" take them?
They did pretty good in the days when we manufactured stuff here, but then Rommney and his ilk outsourced most unskilled labor jobs. With sufficient help from the Democrats as well. Regardless of party, politicians favor big contributors.
Romney loves outsourcing. Obama makes noises against it, but in practice doesn't push it. That may be because he knows it won't get anywhere in Congress, but the end result is the same.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.