US: \"Brother, can you spare a dime?\"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

455 billion. Ouch.

OUCH.

Better look under the sofa cushions or something. You guys won't like it in the third world.

A while ago, Ulairi was predicting that the US economy was going to bounce back very soon, and that other countries(China, and friends) were no threat to the US (economically). Is that still the course of action?

BTW: Total cost of the Iraq war so far is 48 billion. Expected to rise by 10billion in September. Is that to blame?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

The initial estimate of the war was 80 billion.

http://www.cctv.com/english/news/TVN...

So it''s not that. But you do ask an interested questions, where does the remaining 407 billion come from?

The interesting thing about numbers like that are that they are shocking on the surface, but are not as shocking when put into context.

Yes, $450 billion is a huge number. But taken as a percentage of total tax receipts, it a smaller percentage than the deficits under Jimmy Carter.

That''s the funny thing about things like tax cuts. People get all bent out of shape when they see that higher income people get tax cuts, but the reality is that after every major tax cut, total tax receipts actually increase, and the percent of tax receipts paid for by the higher income people actually increases as well. The corrolary is that you have to have an income to pay taxes, so of course tax cuts are the most beneficial to the people that are productive and have a higher income.

A while ago, Ulairi was predicting that the US economy was going to bounce back very soon, and that other countries(China, and friends) were no threat to the US (economically). Is that still the course of action?

Yes, the US economy is going to bounce back. Markets have been seeing steady gains for months, and consumer confidence is rising, both of which are strong precursors to the economy growing. However, the job market typically lags behind the rest of the economy by 8-12 months, so even if the economy is growing well, the job situation will not show immediate gains.

From the San Francisco Chronicle

It just be getting worse, folks! And Alan Greenspan was the one who said the deficit needs to come down soon, not some ""liberal wag.""

The San Francisco Chronicle article is a veritable delight of liberal bias. So much so, that I don''t even know where to begin.

Greenspan said the deficit needs to be reduced to prevent rising interest rates. A true statement. He has made that statement about every deficit amount since he took over the Fed. It is his standard cautionary warning to the people responsible for spending the money, i.e. the House.

Last time I looked, the House is responsible for spending taxes, not the President. The President proposes a budget, but the House is the body actually responsible for the budget, and any deficit that is created.

""This is no way to prepare for the Boomers'' retirement,"" Bixby said.

Why exactly is it the government''s responsibility to pay for their retirement? You know, retiring at age 65 is a realtively new thing in history. I understand why people want to retire, but why exactly is it the government''s responsibility to pay for it? Especially given:

What''s particularly striking, he added, is that until 2008, Baby Boomers will be at their peak earning power. They''ll never be pulling down more money on an aggregate basis than right now.

I would hope that the people close to retirement age have been saving some of their earnings so they have something to live off of.

And I love this line:

Even with lower forecasts, the center found that the cumulative deficit will balloon to more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years as a result of Bush''s tax cuts and skyrocketing defense expenditures.

As I said above, every time there has been a tax cut, the total tax receipts increased. And defense expenditures are the one thing in the Federal budget I am completely happy with. I think they should spend more, if only to pay soldiers more and encourage higher enlistment and re-enlistment.

""It''s politically difficult to do anything about deficits,"" the Concord Coalition''s Bixby observed. ""You either have to raise taxes or cut spending. Politicians are genetically unable to do either.""

Hmm. Cut spending, or at least cap it. What a novel concept. I say we start with the prescription drug plan for seniors. As the Concord study stated, seniors hold the highest per capita accumulation of wealth, so why do we need a universal drug benefit plan? That will save $400 billion or more.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

The San Francisco Chronicle article is a veritable delight of liberal bias.

Does it make it any less valid? Does the word ""liberal"" equate ""lie""?

Does it make it any less valid? Does the word ""liberal"" equate ""lie""?

No, it but is does mean that numbers and statistics will be used without context to prove a point designed to achieve a political aim. Usually to further a vision of sweeping social change, or to attack someone they don''t like.

I am all in favor of reducing the deficit. I think it should be done by (among many things) reducing the enormous number of federal programs, and cutting off social security to new entrants. If you are under 40, you should prepare for your own retirement, and not a government subsidy.

Cutting spending is the only way to reduce the deficit.

A while ago, Ulairi was predicting that the US economy was going to bounce back very soon, and that other countries(China, and friends) were no threat to the US (economically). Is that still the course of action?

Yes. The debt right now is not a problem. We will be pumping 60 billion bucks (rebates) into the economy this summer with more to come from rate cuts.

When you look at debt you must look at % of GDP. I think we didn''t need the last rounds of tax cuts but the Democrats wanting to be President aren''t helping the economy.

I never think we should talk down the economy (Bush shouldn''t have done it).

Well I will agree with the issue regarding retirement. As long as I''m able bodied, I''m going to work in some fashion. Seriously, we have a big problem in this country where retirement is this big grand end game party. Everyone glamorizes it as heaven on earth. After 65 you shouldnt have to be a slave to the grind but not working erodes self confidence and self worth and is tedium to the highest extent. I dont know why everyone wants to stop contributing to the world when they get old. When you stop contributing, you start dying.

The problem is that we build up old people and tell them that they desrve things. They don''t. They do not deserve cheap meds or free meds. They should have to pay for it just like everyone else.

Compassionate conservatism at work.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

The San Francisco Chronicle article is a veritable delight of liberal bias.

Does it make it any less valid? Does the word ""liberal"" equate ""lie""?

Well, you dismissed my sources in another thread -- the U.S. Department of Defense and a French reprint of a right-wing Israeli newspaper report -- on the same grounds, essentially. So you tell us.

The San Francisco Chronicle isn''t being accused of misleading the American people by members of Congress, nor is being investigated by both parties in Congress.

Hmm. Cut spending, or at least cap it. What a novel concept. I say we start with the prescription drug plan for seniors. As the Concord study stated, seniors hold the highest per capita accumulation of wealth, so why do we need a universal drug benefit plan? That will save $400 billion or more.

How can you cut spending on a program that hasn''t even been initiated yet?

How can you cut spending on a program that hasn''t even been initiated yet?

Ahh Koesj, that is the beauty of the US Government budget program. When Democrats say that Republicans are cutting spending on (education, healthcare, welfare, etc), they are not actually cutting the number of real dollars spent. They are cutting the increase in spending. So say this year I spend $10 gazillion on school lunch programs, and the Democrats propose raising that to $20 gazillion next year. If I suggest only raising the real dollars spent to $12 gazillion, I have ''cut school lunches'' by $8 gazillion. Evil Republicans, taking food away from little kids! The fact that real spending went up is irrelevant to the conversation.

So when they talk about budget forecasts, and deficit amounts for next year, etc., it is all speculation. Tax receipts are collected one year at a time. And until they are collected, you have no idea how much money you actually have to spend. So deficit predictions are as accurate as Jeanne Dixon prediciting the return of Christ. The one thing that deficit predictions know for a fact is that the government is going to want to spend more money next year than it did this year, hence the ever escalating numbers.

Johnny Mojo is correct.