Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 07-01-2011, 05:24 AM  
Senior Member

TN
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 118 | Kudos: +26
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHood View Post
well, dorph, I ain't saying republicans are the good guys, I'm saying the dems are bad guys TOO. I voted Obama last election and have regretted it ever since and see nothing better in the reps side either. Like I said, I can't stand either one right now, I am PO'd as all get out that we have no other options.
I'm displeased myself. One thing...eight years of Bush almost took us down the tubes. Folks who are classed as lower middle class will be lucky if they ever recover from this.

Debt Clock in NYC modified to handle “Incomprehensible Growth”

In September 2008, the digital display on the Times Square National Debt Clock was modified to eliminate the dollar sign, so the national debt in tens of trillions of dollars could be displayed.

Have you ever taken a couple of hours and watched the video, "House of Cards?"
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 07:24 AM  
Senior Member
 
havasu's Avatar

California
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,747 | Kudos: +238
Images: 17
Dorph, to be fair to all, you need to go beyond the Bush era to see the real picture. Today the National Debt is climbing past $14,464,999,999,999. Yeah, I know it's STILL the Republican's fault for everything.

Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter, they have all been failures, and it's time for a real change to gain control of this beast before it controls us permanently.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 08:57 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by havasu View Post
Dorph, to be fair to all, you need to go beyond the Bush era to see the real picture. Today the National Debt is climbing past $14,464,999,999,999. Yeah, I know it's STILL the Republican's fault for everything.

Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter, they have all been failures, and it's time for a real change to gain control of this beast before it controls us permanently.
but have they, democrats of both recent and long term history have been able to reign in deficit spending, republicans don't have that history at all, in fact any deficit spending republicans can reign in will be turned around and given back in tax cuts (and that isn't an assumption, that is historically what has been done)

so you can wait forever for some perfect candidate who will do everything as perfectly as you want.... but back in the real world we have to vote for the lesser evil. And I would much rather see the deficit spending stop (democrats) then see the deficit spending grow and be given to rich people in tax cuts (republicans)
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 09:06 AM  
Senior Member
 
havasu's Avatar

California
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,747 | Kudos: +238
Images: 17
Yeah, I can see Obama is really reigning in deficit spending. Further more, the tax cuts for the rich still exist, how many years after Obama took office?
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 10:57 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by havasu View Post
Yeah, I can see Obama is really reigning in deficit spending. Further more, the tax cuts for the rich still exist, how many years after Obama took office?
with republicans in control of the house getting those tax breaks eliminated was impossible since that is when they came up for renewal... granted he should have fought harder against them, but with those cuts making such a huge increase in the deficit the republicans do not have the higher ground here.

during the first time, no, nor should he, we are recovering from a recession, it is not our primary concern, what's the point of a balanced budget if the economy is still going downhill, remember the outlook when he took office, the DJIA being around a mere 6600, that is a really bad outlook especially when it's not forum rants or other senseless crap but people actually putting there money where there mouth is, now we are at 12,500, almost double what it was, the worst of the crisis was averted compared to where people were placing their money expecting it to go.

We can never isolate that point in time and see what if and see how the two parallel universes fare, but where can look at where things were headed by where bets were being placed.

This was the biggest economic situation we have had since the great depression and to come out of such a dire situation so well and so quickly (granted yes it's still bad) compared to how bad it was bet that it was going to be says something.

I don't think most people realize just how close this was to becoming far far worse then it did. And largely became this way due to greed of the rich and super rich banking games, the same people who now deserve tax breaks in republican eyes so they can create new banking schemes to get us in more trouble. heck they even protected the bankers bonuses from being taxed on the basis that these poor hedge fund managers/bankers were just getting by on half a million meanwhile talking about the exorbitant 60k a year salaries teachers were getting.

Economists also predict more growth through the end of this year, so things are looking up, a recent manufacturing report also said those numbers are up. Yes housing will continue to suffer but there is no avoiding that, those markets were WAY overheated and unsustainable, it will take time for those to level out. No amount of intervention can support the unrealistic numbers people were paying then for houses.

If you had any expectation that anyone republican or democrat could come and fix this issue in a year or two you would be delusional, we economically binge drunk for a decade with money from a false economic growth, we will have the hangover to deal with regardless of the methods to attempt to deal with it.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 11:19 AM  
Senior Member

TN
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 118 | Kudos: +26
Quote:
Originally Posted by havasu View Post
Yeah, I can see Obama is really reigning in deficit spending. Further more, the tax cuts for the rich still exist, how many years after Obama took office?
I don't want to take a chance on bursting your bubble but the interest on Reagan and the Bushes $9 trillion run up is about half a trillion dollars a year. For comparison we spend about $100 billion on education and less than that on the infrastructure.

Clinton in two terms balanced the annual budget and paid off about $400 billion of real debt(read HR 4601 from 106th congress). We were on a sound fiscal path to completely pay off the entire debt by 2012 and then along came George with his tax cuts for the wealthy. Somehow borrowing a trillion dollars from communist Chinese banks so the elite and wealthy in this country can have lower tax rates stinks like schit. At least to me it does.

By the way...the Republican majority refused to let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 the way they were originally scheduled. Tax rates for corporations and the wealthy are lower right now than they have been since the 1950's. That just doesn't seem right.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 11:32 AM  
Senior Member
 
havasu's Avatar

California
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,747 | Kudos: +238
Images: 17
I believe it is unfair to group Clinton into the equasion. Those times were extremely different than today's world....all except the exposure of politician's privates.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 11:42 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Not to detract from his accomplishment on the budget but isn't it a bit strange that the national debt increased during both Clinton terms? I suspect it was because SS and other funds were considered off-budget.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 12:04 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Not to detract from his accomplishment on the budget but isn't it a bit strange that the national debt increased during both Clinton terms? I suspect it was because SS and other funds were considered off-budget.
way to look for what you want to see.

lets take a look at the amount each year, look at how during the clinton it goes DOWN from taking over the debt from a republican and gradually reduces it down to a small manageable amount, yes it increased but by the end had it at a very small amount, if bush had continued clinton's plan we would have had a surplus under his plan.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 12:20 PM  
Senior Member

TN
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 118 | Kudos: +26
Quote:
Originally Posted by havasu View Post
I believe it is unfair to group Clinton into the equasion. Those times were extremely different than today's world....all except the exposure of politician's privates.
You do realize that he took over after a 12 year run of debt which took our national debt from less than $1 trillion to $4.3 trillion. Reagan/Bush41 and slow talkin George W. Bush(who doubled it again) borrowed 80% of all the debt this great republic had accumulated in 232 years. They left annual interest payments of close to half a trillion dollars a year. You didn't think China, Japan, Canada et al were letting us have those trillions interest free did you?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.