Stop Scapegoating Bush - 600RR.net
Politics This forum is dedicated to any political subject you got in mind

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-21-2013, 06:35 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Stop Scapegoating Bush

So now that the debt celing as been suspended, i decided to do some research. A lot of people support the current Admin's continuation to spend large amts. of money each year by saying Pres. Obama inherited the debt from Pres. Bush. First off, i do not intend to bash the Presidnt. I am not a republican or a democrat so i am not partial to either.

note: all percentages are in relation to GDP

Lets look at some historical facts. Federal gov't deficits were being run quite high under Reagan and H. W. Bush. If we compare Pres. Clinton's admin. with Pres. Obama's, we can see a sharp contrast in their spending habits. Clinton inherited a 4.7% deficit from H. W. Bush and Obama inherited a 3.2% deficit from G. W. Bush. However, in Clinton's first year, He managed to reduced the deficit by .8% to 3.9%. He continued this trend and in 6 years, the country saw a gov't surplus in 1998. Not only that, but by the time he left office, the government ran a surplus of 2.4%.

Obama inherited a 3.2% deficit from G. W. Bush and in his first year, managed to increased the deficit 6.9% all the way up to 10.1%. Throughout His admin, these figures have been declining but not very impressively. in 2012, the gov't ran 7% budget deficits.
Note: the lowest deficit under Obama is twice the amount of Bush's highest deficit (in 04') as compared to GDP.

In total, Pres. Clinton added about $450 billion to the national Debt in 8 years. Pres. Obama added about $4.5 trillion in 4 years (G. W. Bush added just shy of $2 trillion to the nat'l debt in 8 years). All these figures have been adjusted for inflation.

Pres. Clinton and Pres. Obama are both democrats and both inherited a large gov't deficit from their republican predecessors, with Clinton inheriting a larger figure than Obama. There can be no argument that the reason Obama spends so much has anything to do with Bush.

To all you keynesians out there who believe gov't spending is needed to grow the economy, please tell me, where is the 4 and 1/2 trillion dollars the government has spent these last four years? Do you think this money is creating jobs? Will you point me towards falling unemployment rates? Do you not know that the reason unemployment is declining is not because more ppl are employed but because ppl are pulling themselves from the labor force.

Unemployed are those who are willing and able to work looking for work. If those without a job decide they no longer wish to look for work, they are no longer a part of the "unemployed" and the figure goes down. Is that progress?

The government CAN create jobs by spending others people money, but jobs do not necessarily equal a growing economy. Valuable jobs must be created to create wealth. the government simply creating jobs that society has little to no need for and is not demanding does not add to the economy. There is a reason those jobs are not there. We don't need them anymore. It is a sign that resources need to be allocated elsewhere for a different purpose. If the government was able to produce wealth by creating jobs, let's outlaw all farming machinery and give the farmers spoons. That way, more ppl would be needed to harvest food because lots of ppl would be needed to dig. but does this help the economy? No, it does not.

my source for the facts and figures:
Whitehouse Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
gveliopoulos is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gveliopoulos For This Useful Post:
Bridge_Jumper (05-21-2013), Owns24 (05-24-2013), tripage (05-21-2013)
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-21-2013, 02:29 PM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Excellent post sir!!!


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Niner1000RR For This Useful Post:
gveliopoulos (05-22-2013)
post #3 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-21-2013, 02:55 PM
Ldn
World Superbike Racer
 
Ldn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,061
Thanks: 26
Thanked 334 Times in 273 Posts
Feedback Score: 4 reviews
I spoke to a senior high school class a few years ago and asked the kids what they were planning to do after graduation.

One student said he had no plans, "because the government will take care of me."


Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App

"I don't want to burden you with my problems... but I think I've outgrown my yacht."

:)
Ldn is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Ldn For This Useful Post:
gveliopoulos (05-22-2013)
 
post #4 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-21-2013, 05:41 PM
Moto GP Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Charlotte_NC OHLINS_MASTER_DEALER
Posts: 3,836
Thanks: 3
Thanked 108 Times in 96 Posts
Feedback Score: 4 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldn View Post
I spoke to a senior high school class a few years ago and asked the kids what they were planning to do after graduation.

One student said he had no plans, "because the government will take care of me."


Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
That's really sad.

.
HardRacing is offline  
post #5 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-21-2013, 06:02 PM
 
tripage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: orlando
Posts: 14,330
Thanks: 598
Thanked 728 Times in 591 Posts
Feedback Score: 91 reviews
Should have made a point to single that "student" out and let his/her pears know that he/she is depending everyone of you to support what he/she wants to do. See if they can get him/her to change their mind.




http://tripageled.com/store/
Owner
Tristan Page
[email protected]
[email protected]
Dual low / Dual High beam led headlights. OEM appearance
http://tripageled.com/store/index.ph...product_id=236
Integrated Gear Indicator installed inside your cluster
http://tripageled.com/store/index.ph...product_id=116
tripage is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to tripage For This Useful Post:
gveliopoulos (05-22-2013)
post #6 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-21-2013, 09:41 PM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
Shadowfetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 804
Thanks: 321
Thanked 61 Times in 57 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Great post!

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
Shadowfetus is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Shadowfetus For This Useful Post:
gveliopoulos (05-22-2013)
post #7 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-22-2013, 02:48 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripage View Post
Should have made a point to single that "student" out and let his/her pears know that he/she is depending everyone of you to support what he/she wants to do. See if they can get him/her to change their mind.
^yes! i think that would have been perfect. It's so hard for ppl to look deeper into what they believe and what they are truly advocating. Let's break it down to the raw and see if you really believe this and how many others stand by you.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #8 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 07:19 AM
World Superbike Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 2,003
Thanks: 19
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
Lets look at some historical facts. Federal gov't deficits were being run quite high under Reagan and H. W. Bush. If we compare Pres. Clinton's admin. with Pres. Obama's, we can see a sharp contrast in their spending habits. Clinton inherited a 4.7% deficit from H. W. Bush and Obama inherited a 3.2% deficit from G. W. Bush. However, in Clinton's first year, He managed to reduced the deficit by .8% to 3.9%. He continued this trend and in 6 years, the country saw a gov't surplus in 1998. Not only that, but by the time he left office, the government ran a surplus of 2.4%.

Obama inherited a 3.2% deficit from G. W. Bush and in his first year, managed to increased the deficit 6.9% all the way up to 10.1%. Throughout His admin, these figures have been declining but not very impressively. in 2012, the gov't ran 7% budget deficits.
Note: the lowest deficit under Obama is twice the amount of Bush's highest deficit (in 04') as compared to GDP.
Ok, it's great that you are trying to learn about deficits... But they are FAR more complicated than you think they are.

Obama didn't enter office with a 3.2% deficit, that was 2008, the budget for 2009 was already approved and put in motion by G.W. Bush. A president doesn't walk in and throw out the last budget. 2 weeks before setting a foot into the Oval Office (and before he had the chance to make ANY policy changes), the CBO projected the the deficit for 2009 would be 1.2T or 8.3% of GDP. Due to things be worse than projected, that number actually ended up being 1.4T and 10.1% of GDP.

While he did add to the deficit in 2009, he largely wasn't responsible for most of that 1.4T, certainly not responsible for increasing it by 7%. The main reason for the huge increase is mostly due to reduced tax income... Since everyone lost their job (and many took a hit on investments, etc) tax collection took a huge hit... The lowest in 50+ years.

Things that Obama (i.e. Congress) has done to increase the deficit: Recovery Act and PPACA (ObamaCare) come to mind, outside of that it realistically hasn't been all that much different from past administrations.

I suggest you do a little more research, into the cause of the deficits, not so much the raw numbers. It's pretty easy (and safe) to say that both G.W. Bush and Obama policies (2+ Wars, growth of Fed gov after 9/11, Medicare Part D, TARP, Recovery Act, PPACA, etc) have both greatly contributed to the current fiscal situation, which was exacerbated by the terrible economy/tax income.
pbeaul is offline  
post #9 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 07:39 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
Ok, it's great that you are trying to learn about deficits... But they are FAR more complicated than you think they are.

Obama didn't enter office with a 3.2% deficit, that was 2008, the budget for 2009 was already approved and put in motion by G.W. Bush. A president doesn't walk in and throw out the last budget. 2 weeks before setting a foot into the Oval Office (and before he had the chance to make ANY policy changes), the CBO projected the the deficit for 2009 would be 1.2T or 8.3% of GDP. Due to things be worse than projected, that number actually ended up being 1.4T and 10.1% of GDP.

While he did add to the deficit in 2009, he largely wasn't responsible for most of that 1.4T, certainly not responsible for increasing it by 7%. The main reason for the huge increase is mostly due to reduced tax income... Since everyone lost their job (and many took a hit on investments, etc) tax collection took a huge hit... The lowest in 50+ years.

Things that Obama (i.e. Congress) has done to increase the deficit: Recovery Act and PPACA (ObamaCare) come to mind, outside of that it realistically hasn't been all that much different from past administrations.

I suggest you do a little more research, into the cause of the deficits, not so much the raw numbers. It's pretty easy (and safe) to say that both G.W. Bush and Obama policies (2+ Wars, growth of Fed gov after 9/11, Medicare Part D, TARP, Recovery Act, PPACA, etc) have both greatly contributed to the current fiscal situation, which was exacerbated by the terrible economy/tax income.
you're right. i was a little bit lazy focusing primarily on the numbers. i know that. I understand that budget's are already set and are not fixed year to year. However, the continual deficits being run mean government is expanding. it means that for the next year, more money needs to spent than last to sustain the current level of gov't because it got bigger. The numbers do illistrate fiscal responsibility. I compared Obama and Clinton to show that even though gov't has expanding, it doesnt need to contine to expand. Clinton was able to reign in gov't spending. Obama has not.

You say tax collection took a huge hit on the budget. yes, i thought about that and have factored it in without mentioning it in my post. There have been other recessions in the past and and the result was much less severe than what Obama has done.

what the numbers do show (and this is the reason for my laziness) is that the current President is extremely fiscally irresponsible. He has only been in office for 4 years and has spent more than both Bush's and Clinton combined. He has four more years.

was i a little bit lazy on the numbers? yeah, but i thought it illistrated my point well and i am glad you called me out on it.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #10 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 08:11 AM
World Superbike Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 2,003
Thanks: 19
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
you're right. i was a little bit lazy focusing primarily on the numbers. i know that. I understand that budget's are already set and are not fixed year to year. However, the continual deficits being run mean government is expanding. it means that for the next year, more money needs to spent than last to sustain the current level of gov't because it got bigger. The numbers do illistrate fiscal responsibility. I compared Obama and Clinton to show that even though gov't has expanding, it doesnt need to contine to expand. Clinton was able to reign in gov't spending. Obama has not.
But the government hasn't really gotten any bigger (recently), it's just getting paid less and has higher than usual costs for social welfare stuff. So it's going deeper in debt trying to keep what it has going... Many people don't understand how government debt works, it's NOTHING like personal debt. Governments need to be fiscally responsible, but there is LOTS of flexibility in dealing with debt levels.

For instance, at the end of WW2 the US was in tremendous amount of debt... It never really paid that debt off, the economy just picked up significantly and it became irrelevant. As long as the tax base is growing, and the economy holds steady debt isn't a major thing because inflation will eventually make it irrelevant.



Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
You say tax collection took a huge hit on the budget. yes, i thought about that and have factored it in without mentioning it in my post. There have been other recessions in the past and and the result was much less severe than what Obama has done.

what the numbers do show (and this is the reason for my laziness) is that the current President is extremely fiscally irresponsible. He has only been in office for 4 years and has spent more than both Bush's and Clinton combined. He has four more years.
Previous recessions were not as bad, this past recession has been the worst since the great depression.

What it shows is that previous congresses were more fiscally responsible, congress holds the purse strings, not Obama. He's supposed to set the tone/policies, but ultimately it's the House/Senate that control the budget. If the House/Senate don't work with him there's not much he can do other than veto, which is something that they can ultimately override with enough support.

There has been lots of talk about cutting things, and righting the ship so to speak, but because everyone has dug their heals in and refused to compromise very little has been accomplished. The only thing they agreed to was sequestration of the budget because neither side figured it would happen... But it ultimately did because they couldn't agree on a sensible way to cut the budget.

Last edited by pbeaul; 05-24-2013 at 08:14 AM.
pbeaul is offline  
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 08:40 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
Obama didn't enter office with a 3.2% deficit, that was 2008, the budget for 2009 was already approved and put in motion by G.W. Bush. A president doesn't walk in and throw out the last budget. 2 weeks before setting a foot into the Oval Office (and before he had the chance to make ANY policy changes), the CBO projected the the deficit for 2009 would be 1.2T or 8.3% of GDP. Due to things be worse than projected, that number actually ended up being 1.4T and 10.1% of GDP.
Correct, the 2009 budget was submitted by Bush, but also remember that this included bail outs that the majority of which were paid back over the following 2 years (2010 and 2011) and don't get credited back to the 2009 deficit (as they probably should...)

Note: I was 100% AGAINST these bailouts!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
While he did add to the deficit in 2009, he largely wasn't responsible for most of that 1.4T, certainly not responsible for increasing it by 7%. The main reason for the huge increase is mostly due to reduced tax income... Since everyone lost their job (and many took a hit on investments, etc) tax collection took a huge hit... The lowest in 50+ years.
Like you said, do research... I say that because you say that tax revenue hit the "lowest in 50+ years" which is FALSE.

Not sure where you're getting your "info" but I would suggest you get it from the source, www.whitehouse.gov.

If you do this you will find that revenue was as follows:

2001: $1,991,082
2002: $1,853,136
2003: $1,782,314
2004: $1,880,114
2005: $2,153,611
2006: $2,406,869
2007: $2,567,985
2008: $2,523,991
2009: $2,104,989
2010: $2,162,724
2011: $2,303,466
2012: $2,450,164

The lowest since 2001 was in 2003. The revenue in 2003 was the lowest since the previous low of 1998. This was a result of 2 recessions overlapping. This was the result of 9/11 and the ".com" bubble, combined with the reduction in tax rates passed by the Bush administration. It took time for the results of the taxes to rebound.

Now, before you say it, this is raw $$ so now lets adjust it for inflation.
2001: $2,578,985.22
2002: $2,362,949.27
2003: $2,222,003.11
2004: $2,283,129.23
2005: $2,529,550.10
2006: $2,738,673.08
2007: $2,841,080.03
2008: $2,689,155.95
2009: $2,250,742.93
2010: $2,275,156.77
2011: $2,351,135.08
2012: $2,450,164.63

So, adjusted for inflation (the inflation calculator I used is from www.bls.gov) 2011 was the lowest revenue since 2003... Hardly 50+ years...

Here is a chart of debt/revenue.



As you can see, revenue was NOT the issue! It's been spending.

So yea, I think research is important.


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #12 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 10:24 AM
World Superbike Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 2,003
Thanks: 19
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
Correct, the 2009 budget was submitted by Bush, but also remember that this included bail outs that the majority of which were paid back over the following 2 years (2010 and 2011) and don't get credited back to the 2009 deficit (as they probably should...)

Note: I was 100% AGAINST these bailouts!!!!


Like you said, do research... I say that because you say that tax revenue hit the "lowest in 50+ years" which is FALSE.

Not sure where you're getting your "info" but I would suggest you get it from the source, www.whitehouse.gov.

If you do this you will find that revenue was as follows:

2001: $1,991,082
2002: $1,853,136
2003: $1,782,314
2004: $1,880,114
2005: $2,153,611
2006: $2,406,869
2007: $2,567,985
2008: $2,523,991
2009: $2,104,989
2010: $2,162,724
2011: $2,303,466
2012: $2,450,164

The lowest since 2001 was in 2003. The revenue in 2003 was the lowest since the previous low of 1998. This was a result of 2 recessions overlapping. This was the result of 9/11 and the ".com" bubble, combined with the reduction in tax rates passed by the Bush administration. It took time for the results of the taxes to rebound.

Now, before you say it, this is raw $$ so now lets adjust it for inflation.
2001: $2,578,985.22
2002: $2,362,949.27
2003: $2,222,003.11
2004: $2,283,129.23
2005: $2,529,550.10
2006: $2,738,673.08
2007: $2,841,080.03
2008: $2,689,155.95
2009: $2,250,742.93
2010: $2,275,156.77
2011: $2,351,135.08
2012: $2,450,164.63

So, adjusted for inflation (the inflation calculator I used is from www.bls.gov) 2011 was the lowest revenue since 2003... Hardly 50+ years...

As you can see, revenue was NOT the issue! It's been spending.

So yea, I think research is important.
So you adjusted for inflation, that's good... Did you adjust for the relative size of the economy? Hmmm, it appears that no, you didn't.

Relative to the size of the economy/GDP, 2009/2010 pulled in a full percentage point less in tax revenues than they did in 2003/4. GDP was roughly 14T, so if they had received the same level of tax revenue as in 2003/4 they would have received an additional 140 billion in taxes.

Not enough to offset the 1.4T deficit, but 140 billion isn't exactly chump change.

Total Tax Revenues as percentage of GDP:
1950: 14.4%
...
2000: 20.6%
2001: 19.5%
2002: 17.6%
2003: 16.2%
2004: 16.1%
2005: 17.3%
2006: 18.2%
2007: 18.5%
2008: 17.6%
2009: 15.1%
2010: 15.1%
2011: 15.4%
2012: 15.8%

You literally have to go all the way back to 1950, 63 years ago to find tax revenues that were lower than 2009 as a percentage of the GDP.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...source_GDP.pdf

If that isn't good enough here's a second source CBO Pages 5 - 6 : http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil..._chartbook.pdf

And yes, research is good, it helps us all learn. These kinds of subjects are very technical and complicated... It's not a simple exercise for professionals, much less internet experts.
pbeaul is offline  
post #13 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 01:48 PM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
That's again not the issue, SPENDING is the issue! Spending as a % of GDP is also insanely high. The historical numbers are 18-19% of GDP where as right now we are in the 23.5%-24% of GDP.

Stop the spending craze and you don't have a problem!

Instead we have people like yourself making excuses for our debt. Debt has EXPLODED since 2009 and it needs to STOP.

Isn't it ironic that when the national debt was 9 trillion it was a disgrace, unpatriotic and was holding our future generations hostage, and now that it's nearly 17 trillion it's just ok because it's not a republican doing it.

It was a disgrace then and it's a disgrace now. And I don't have to spin a bunch of crap to understand it.


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-25-2013, 02:30 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
Ok, it's great that you are trying to learn about deficits... But they are FAR more complicated than you think they are.

Obama didn't enter office with a 3.2% deficit, that was 2008, the budget for 2009 was already approved and put in motion by G.W. Bush. A president doesn't walk in and throw out the last budget. 2 weeks before setting a foot into the Oval Office (and before he had the chance to make ANY policy changes), the CBO projected the the deficit for 2009 would be 1.2T or 8.3% of GDP. Due to things be worse than projected, that number actually ended up being 1.4T and 10.1% of GDP.

While he did add to the deficit in 2009, he largely wasn't responsible for most of that 1.4T, certainly not responsible for increasing it by 7%. The main reason for the huge increase is mostly due to reduced tax income... Since everyone lost their job (and many took a hit on investments, etc) tax collection took a huge hit... The lowest in 50+ years.

Things that Obama (i.e. Congress) has done to increase the deficit: Recovery Act and PPACA (ObamaCare) come to mind, outside of that it realistically hasn't been all that much different from past administrations.

I suggest you do a little more research, into the cause of the deficits, not so much the raw numbers.
It's pretty easy (and safe) to say that both G.W. Bush and Obama policies (2+ Wars, growth of Fed gov after 9/11, Medicare Part D, TARP, Recovery Act, PPACA, etc) have both greatly contributed to the current fiscal situation, which was exacerbated by the terrible economy/tax income.
i want to re-respond to your first post.

percentage of deficits aside, the current admin. (Obama AND congress ;)) has till added nearly $4.5 tn to our nat'l debt in 4 years while Bush's admin added just shy of $2 tn to our nat'l debt in 8 years. again, these numbers are adjusted for inflation.

You blame the economy for a decrease in revenue but that doesn't prove a good argument. My point of the post is that gov't spending does not help the economy because its not possible and that's not how economics works. the numbers are an illustration of that point.

you suggested i do a little more research into the cause of the deficits and not just the numbers. but my point is that whatever the cause of the deficits are does not justify the spending.

you say the things that Obama did aren't that much different than past admins. but clearly it is different because Congress is spending MUCH more and that can't be denied.

you say the fiscal irresponsibility is exacerbated by the bad economy/tax income, but again, that in no way justifies huge gov't deficits. this is my point. If there is a terrible economy and you predict you will receive less revenue, you need to adjust. you can't keep trying to sustain the current levels of gov't. the sequestration? a freaking joke. the problems lie with entitlement programs that are considered mandatory spending and are not even discussed in budged deals. and on top of all that you want to furlough workers while in the mean time give hundreds of millions of dollars to egypt and pakistan?



I do understand your point. You're saying that gov't budgets were at a certain point and the recession came in and now all of a sudden, the gov't does not have that revenue it needs to continue what its been doing. I understand that there might a deficit simply because of that even if the gov't was acting responsibly. but the degree to which congress runs deficits is not justifiable.

this is essentially the point I was trying to make. that gov't spending is not effective in growing the economy so the current admin needs to stop. if you think that gov't spending does help the economy, well then tell me, where is that $4.5 tn worth a debt?

Quote:
To all you keynesians out there who believe gov't spending is needed to grow the economy, please tell me, where is the 4 and 1/2 trillion dollars the government has spent these last four years? Do you think this money is creating jobs? Will you point me towards falling unemployment rates? Do you not know that the reason unemployment is declining is not because more ppl are employed but because ppl are pulling themselves from the labor force.

Unemployed are those who are willing and able to work looking for work. If those without a job decide they no longer wish to look for work, they are no longer a part of the "unemployed" and the figure goes down. Is that progress?

The government CAN create jobs by spending others people money, but jobs do not necessarily equal a growing economy. Valuable jobs must be created to create wealth. the government simply creating jobs that society has little to no need for and is not demanding does not add to the economy. There is a reason those jobs are not there. We don't need them anymore. It is a sign that resources need to be allocated elsewhere for a different purpose. If the government was able to produce wealth by creating jobs, let's outlaw all farming machinery and give the farmers spoons. That way, more ppl would be needed to harvest food because lots of ppl would be needed to dig. but does this help the economy? No, it does not.

my source for the facts and figures:
Whitehouse Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Last edited by gveliopoulos; 05-25-2013 at 03:37 AM.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #15 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-25-2013, 02:39 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
i forget the exact year but i think its 2020, the interest alone on our debt is projected to be the single greatest gov't expense at $2 tn. to say we don't have a debt problem is foolish and nonsensical and President Obama should be reprimanded for making such statements. It is clearly a problem when we can't even afford to pay the interest off on our debt! We have to start today.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #16 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 11:13 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
i forget the exact year but i think its 2020, the interest alone on our debt is projected to be the single greatest gov't expense at $2 tn. to say we don't have a debt problem is foolish and nonsensical and President Obama should be reprimanded for making such statements. It is clearly a problem when we can't even afford to pay the interest off on our debt! We have to start today.
It's like when the libs out there argue that Obama has decreased the national debt by a %.

Yea, and the next president could spend more than Obama and IT TOO would be a lower % of the debt, because the debt is so damn HUGE!!!!!

It's a MAJOR problem!! And we haven't seen anything yet, the 2007/2008 financial crisis will look like nothing soon!


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #17 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 11:20 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
It's like when the libs out there argue that Obama has decreased the national debt by a %.

Yea, and the next president could spend more than Obama and IT TOO would be a lower % of the debt, because the debt is so damn HUGE!!!!!

It's a MAJOR problem!! And we haven't seen anything yet, the 2007/2008 financial crisis will look like nothing soon!
ive not heard that said. what do they mean he decreased the debt by a percentage? meaning he's added the lowest percentage of debt as compared to the total debt?

i hear ya. we are in for it man. but im ready. it needs to happen. its inevitable. we just need to get it over with and start again! the quicker we fall, the quicker we can rebuild.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #18 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 01:12 PM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
ive not heard that said. what do they mean he decreased the debt by a percentage? meaning he's added the lowest percentage of debt as compared to the total debt?

i hear ya. we are in for it man. but im ready. it needs to happen. its inevitable. we just need to get it over with and start again! the quicker we fall, the quicker we can rebuild.
Exactly! I had heard a FEW liberals reference that. I remember Alan Colmes (sp?) and Juan Williams talking about it.

They were talking about how the % of debt added by the president was lower under Obama than Bush, which was correct.

Bush inherited a 5.76 trillion dollar debt. And rose it to an outrageous 10.625 trillion dollar debt. So he rose it by what? Some 85%? Or so... (damn that pisses me off when I think about it! )

And how under Obama (inherited that 10.62 and stands today at 16.87) it only rose a what, 59%?

lol

So forget the fact that it rose by 6.25 trillion in just over 4 years... Compared to 4.86 in 8 years.

God that's disgusting! BOTH OF THEM!

Ok, I'm getting pissed off... who wants to do a trackday? LOL


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #19 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-01-2013, 06:15 PM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post

Ok, I'm getting pissed off... who wants to do a trackday? LOL
For realz. I want to do a trackday! But you gotta be willing to give me a few pointers haha.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #20 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-03-2013, 08:29 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
For realz. I want to do a trackday! But you gotta be willing to give me a few pointers haha.
lol I'm ready when you are!


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #21 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-03-2013, 08:30 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
If im ever near Boca Raton, FL im going to hit you up on here and take you up on that homie!
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #22 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-03-2013, 08:57 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
You'd be surprised how much someone can help without having to be there... ;)


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #23 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-03-2013, 09:03 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
apparently i would! Give me an example por favor.

pm though, this is way off topic from political haha.
gveliopoulos is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the 600RR.net forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome