Originally posted by eljefejesusNothing to see here. Debt is a good thing.....or at least that is what my creditors keep telling me. In fact, just look at what debt has done to our economy as well as to the eoconmy in the 1930's. Nothing to see here!!
generalissimo and bill 718 you are welcome to debunk the argument now...
I think whodey already agrees.
Question, who's right? Is there no Obama-willingness-to-face-rising-debt problem?
Originally posted by eljefejesusYou're right, of course.
generalissimo and bill 718 you are welcome to debunk the argument now...
I think whodey already agrees.
Question, who's right? Is there no Obama-willingness-to-face-rising-debt problem?
The utter failure to address the budget deficit was Bush's worst failure and Obama's budget deficits are making Bush's look like chump change.
For all those who assert that "well, Obama will address the deficit after the recession," well, I hope so; but historically, the trend is towards greater and more irresponsible government spending, not the other way.
I sure hope Obama has the guts to balance the budget in his stint as President, but call me skeptical as to his willingness and ability to do it.
Originally posted by eljefejesusExceptional, sure. But there are also differences in for example state pension funds. Many countries pay state pensions directly from taxes. Others have assets in pension funds (for example the Netherlands), but the latter countries effectively have a much lower state debt.
Norway with its huge petroleum reserves and good management of these assets is often an anomaly and an exception to the rule, it is a rare thing to see in the world... a country that prudently manages its abundant natural resource fortune.
Originally posted by sh76Well, that's a very hasty generalisation. Reagan may have been a big spender, but Clinton was fairly responsible fiscally.
You're right, of course.
The utter failure to address the budget deficit was Bush's worst failure and Obama's budget deficits are making Bush's look like chump change.
For all those who assert that "well, Obama will address the deficit after the recession," well, I hope so; but historically, the trend is towards greater and more irresponsible government s ...[text shortened]... his stint as President, but call me skeptical as to his willingness and ability to do it.
Originally posted by whodeyYeah seriously, maybe the loan sharks out there are not just looking out for my best interest... nor are the drug pushers in the old neighborhoods. Perhaps... just perhaps... a change in direction is needed? Stop the addiction to debt? Now that would be a legacy. I would just settle for a pause for now.
Nothing to see here. Debt is a good thing.....or at least that is what my creditors keep telling me. In fact, just look at what debt has done to our economy as well as to the eoconmy in the 1930's. Nothing to see here!!
Originally posted by sh76We're strongly agreed on this pointl. I think it is the only responsible thing to do to point out this looming problem long on the horizon.
You're right, of course.
The utter failure to address the budget deficit was Bush's worst failure and Obama's budget deficits are making Bush's look like chump change.
For all those who assert that "well, Obama will address the deficit after the recession," well, I hope so; but historically, the trend is towards greater and more irresponsible government s ...[text shortened]... his stint as President, but call me skeptical as to his willingness and ability to do it.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMakes sense, like having a bank account to keep a balance on and planning so as to be able to pay without depleting one's account. As opposed to relying on week-to-week checks.
Exceptional, sure. But there are also differences in for example state pension funds. Many countries pay state pensions directly from taxes. Others have assets in pension funds (for example the Netherlands), but the latter countries effectively have a much lower state debt.
Originally posted by zeeblebotI agree, Kazet and others continue to forget or ignore the important fact that it was the Republicans who pushed to put the strong breaks on spending... at least the 90's republican savers, if not the 2000's republican spenders.
i can't remember back that far.
Clinton had a Republican congress.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I have no doubt Obama will address the deficit when the recession is over.
You're right, of course.
The utter failure to address the budget deficit was Bush's worst failure and Obama's budget deficits are making Bush's look like chump change.
For all those who assert that "well, Obama will address the deficit after the recession," well, I hope so; but historically, the trend is towards greater and more irresponsible government s ...[text shortened]... his stint as President, but call me skeptical as to his willingness and ability to do it.
What you're seeing now is recession spending. If you're going to "credit" Obama for stimulous spending to sum up his (overall) spending phylosophy, then it's a good thing we got Bush out of office. Can we now credit him with spending almost a TRILLION dollars in less than a week to bailout the banks? That was Bush, was it not?
Whether it be Obama, McCain or a Bush 3rd term there would have been massive stimulous spending.
Originally posted by eljefejesusUm.... huh????
I agree, Kazet and others continue to forget or ignore the important fact that it was the Republicans who pushed to put the strong breaks on spending... at least the 90's republican savers, if not the 2000's republican spenders.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was passed into law and signed by President William Jefferson Clinton with every single one of every single Republican voting against it.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBut I thought spending by "W" helped get us into this economic mess. Now the left would have us believe that to get out of it we have to spend more. Hmmm.
I have no doubt Obama will address the deficit when the recession is over.
What you're seeing now is recession spending. If you're going to "credit" Obama for stimulous spending to sum up his (overall) spending phylosophy, then it's a good thing we got Bush out of office. Can we now credit him with spending almost a TRILLION dollars in less tha ...[text shortened]... er it be Obama, McCain or a Bush 3rd term there would have been massive stimulous spending.
Originally posted by whodeyI think the biggest mention you'll see of Bush spending by Democrats is the hypocrisy from the right. Bush spent more than any other President in history, and in the end he pushed for and signed almost a Trillion dollar bank bailout bill. Through all this no "tea parties" and not even a peep from the right. Now Democrat is in office and the right suddenly finds their "Conservative" voice? Please.
But I thought spending by "W" helped get us into this economic mess. Now the left would have us believe that to get out of it we have to spend more. Hmmm.
Regardless of whether we had McCain, Bush or Obama in office we would have massive stimulous spending - spending that does *not* reflect how they will spend after the recession ends. In my opinion during a strong economy is the time for the Government to tighten its belt, not in the middle of a major recession.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou forgot Bush passing one of the largest entitlement programs in US history, which we have no way to pay for.
I think the biggest mention you'll see of Bush spending by Democrats is the hypocrisy from the right. Bush spent more than any other President in history, and in the end he pushed for and signed almost a Trillion dollar bank bailout bill. Through all this no "tea parties" and not even a peep from the right. Now Democrat is in office and the right s ...[text shortened]... is the time for the Government to tighten its belt, not in the middle of a major recession.
I agree 100%. Unfortunatly, al\though the right was made uncomfortable by "W" the closet liberal they simply could not find it within themselves to get beyond the fact he was a Republican. More is the pity.