| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Obama's budget is . . . |
| fine |
|
9% |
[ 2 ] |
| bleak but necessary |
|
23% |
[ 5 ] |
| irresponsible and inflationary |
|
52% |
[ 11 ] |
| bad, but not his fault! |
|
14% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 21 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:57 am Post subject: Obama's Budget: Irresponsible |
 |
|
WaPo Chart
Obviously, Bush is to blame for this as well.
But how is Obama's budget not generational theft? Would anyone like to defend this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What would you propose instead? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The slide into generational theft began 8 years ago when Bush & Co started spending the record surplus they inherited. They took a great thing and really *beeped* it up.
No use in complaining about how it's getting fixed.
Maybe next time they'll provide more responsible governance and things won't get to this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris2007
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| What would you propose instead? |
Uh....cut spending? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| What would you propose instead? |
Uh....cut spending? |
 Right on. But then the chil'run would suffer  , the economy would implode without Hank Greenberg holding it all together with our tax dollars , and the terrrrrrrists would get us . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| What would you propose instead? |
Uh....cut spending? |
Not politically realistic. And some economists would disagree with you too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris2007
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| What would you propose instead? |
Uh....cut spending? |
Not politically realistic. And some economists would disagree with you too. |
Sad, but this part is true. As long as the same bums are in office it will be difficult to cut spending. Obama COULD take the lead on it, but he won't. Just like he didn't stop the earmarks he promised he would.
The politicians in D.C. are like crack-whores with our money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| What would you propose instead? |
Uh....cut spending? |
Not politically realistic. And some economists would disagree with you too. |
Who, Krugman?
Economists are policy-makers as much as anyone of us else.
Yes, you cut spending and raise taxes. And don't start with me on this 'you don't raise taxes in a recession,' simply because when Hoover did it he overdid it.
Don't just raise margins on the rich, although you'll need to do that. Break dividends: they're ordinary income now, and meanwhile kill corporate taxes, which cost us almost as much in enforcement as they garner in revenue; the taxes on dividends and corporate dissolution (ordinary income now) will suffice. Kill carryovers on capital losses since adjusting the capital gains rate is pointless now. Wipe out all Federal tax deductions in real estate. Principal residence deductions? GONE. Deductions for home equity and acquisition financing? also GONE.
But the stew is already cooked. Its the stimulus that'll break us. An immense part of that bill was pork and silly tax cuts, and we haven't even gotten around yet to the pressing problems: entitlement reform, healthcare reform, and education. Its TARP I that'll break us, not entirely Obama's fault, but he should've seen that it would narrow our options.
You'll notice the small to medium sized banks are still okay. Why? They weren't leveraged to all hell b/c they still had to follow the net capital rule of 15-to-1 securities-to-assets. The big banks need to be dismantled piece by piece, and we need to price those damned toxic assets rather than stick our heads in the sand and cover them up with good money!
Face it, Bucheon Bum, Obama has exhausted his political capital, and by political capital I mean simply the money in the coffers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As far as "irresponsible and inflationary" I don't see avoiding inflation as a responsible policy goal right now. We are facing serious threat of deflation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| As far as "irresponsible and inflationary" I don't see avoiding inflation as a responsible policy goal right now. We are facing serious threat of deflation. |
Or rather that was the fear in December. Of course in March the Fed invented $1.2 trillion. Which is more than enough to eliminate the spectre of deflation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You'll notice the small to medium sized banks are still okay. Why? They weren't leveraged to all hell b/c they still had to follow the net capital rule of 15-to-1 securities-to-assets. |
Let's not forget the beginning of the shyte circle: mortgage companies, who had very little regulation at all, and whose questionable mortgages the big banks hoovered up, re-packaged, sold & sold again into derivatives (again with little regulation) few could understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I voted for the 4th option. That is to say that the Obama isn't totally responsible, although his policies aren't helping. I remember the Republicans in Congress trying to take a stand during TARP 1, but then the Dow plummeted after the vote. Well, the Dow is still down from its high. And TARP 2, like all sequels, pretty much sucked. These bailouts only mean one thing. Higher taxes down the road unless the gov't is willing to make some serious sacrifices. Sadly, taxes will go up on all Americans in the not to distant future. Dow 10K, forget about it. I really hate being pessimistic, but things will get worse before they get better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| The politicians in D.C. are like crack-whores with our money. |
Now that's just a heartless, unfair insult to crack whores.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Legislation that involves borrowing substantial amounts of money to fuel high-spending agendas is not necessarily generational theft. I can see a hypothetical situation wherein, if the borrowed funds were spent wisely and intelligently enough to actually spur growth substantially, the net result could be gain rather than loss.
However, I don't feel that is happening and I don't feel it will happen. The Obama administration has all ready shown sufficient poor judgment to demonstrate an inability to direct these funds to such ends. Huge mistakes have all ready been made, and I do not give the idea that more mistakes will not be made much credit.
Further, no where near enough is being done to mend the problems in our economic system that inevitably lead to this sort of crisis in the first place. Credit needs to be moderated more heavily. Financial market oversight is no where near high enough on the agenda. Supporting massive financial and productive institutions in their current incarnation instead of breaking them down into smaller units is unacceptable. Patch work health care reform that tries to salvage failed programs like Medicare instead of the drastic system overhaul needed is intolerable.
As a result, I voted irresponsible and inflationary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One place to start: The Great Corporate Tax Dodge
Which is the only one that has not set up an offshore subsidiary to avoid paying taxes?
* AIG
* American Express
* Bank of America
* Comcast
* Coca-Cola
* Dell
* Exxon-Mobil
* Home Depot
* Pepsi
* Pfizer
Of the ten companies listed above, only Home Depot has not set up an offshore subsidiary to avoid paying its taxes.
They are truly in the minority.
In all, 83 of the 100 biggest corporations in America have set up off-shore tax shelters, costing the rest of us as much as $100 billion a year!
https://www.iowapirg.org/action/tax-budget/tax-dodge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
