• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government Set to Announce Second Year of $1 Trillion-Plus Deficit

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gee, Wally I thought Obama and Biden said they were going to spend our way out of this economic disaster.

Yeh, Beav, I guess we have to spend more faster so we can get to a $2 Trillion deficit before everything is better.

I don't get it Wally, it seems that's just back words. Can you explain it to me huh Wally?

Jeez Beaver do I look like the encyclopedia Britannica? I'm almost 17 and I still don't know what Dad does for living when he goes to that office with Mr. Rutherford.

Yeh, I know Wally, Do you think Miss Landers can tell me how all this works.

I don't know Beav. I'm not sure anybody can explain this logic.

What is logic Wally?

Nobody who is in charge of spending knows Beav, now go to sleep or I'm telling Dad you're still awake.

Good night Wally.

Good night Beaver.
The end

And that's what this seems like to me these days a pointless sitcom that's not really funny worth a darn, because some of know how to fix it but the idiots keep doing the opposite every damn day it seems.


FoxNews.com - Government Set to Announce Second Year of $1 Trillion-Plus Deficit

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is set to report Friday that the federal budget deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the second straight year, providing critics of government spending with fresh ammunition ahead of the midterm congressional elections.

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year that ended Sept. 30 will total $1.29 trillion. That's down by $125 billion from the $1.4 trillion in 2009 -- the highest deficit on record.

Soaring deficits have become a problem for Democrats in an election year focused on the weak economy.
 
Last edited:

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The liberal weenies will see only this...
The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year that ended Sept. 30 will total $1.29 trillion. That's down by $125 billion from the $1.4 trillion in 2009.
...and claim a huge victory for Obama, saying he is reducing the deficit as promised. :roll:
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,650
Reaction score
9,443
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yep, instead we should cut taxes and that will leave us with a great economy like Obama was left with. So simple a kid could understand it...
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yep, instead we should cut taxes and that will leave us with a great economy like Obama was left with. So simple a kid could understand it...
No, No, No, you don't get it yet. You cut taxes and spending and it short order revenues go up, unemployment goes down and the economy comes back doing just one thing will never work by itself.
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, No, No, you don't get it yet. You cut taxes and spending and it short order revenues go up, unemployment goes down and the economy comes back doing just one thing will never work by itself.
Shame on you for pointing out the blatantly obvious? :)

You always hear , "yeah cutting taxes will work, blah blah" from the Lib's. They always miss that oh and also CUT spending part.. :)


Tim-
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,280
Reaction score
32,396
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yep, instead we should cut taxes and that will leave us with a great economy like Obama was left with. So simple a kid could understand it...
At what point, in your estimation, does Obama become the owner of the US Economy? when his term is up? It's OBAMA's economy now... he's the one who has to try and fix it, regardless of who or what broke it. OR, is it above his pay grade?
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
At what point, in your estimation, does Obama become the owner of the US Economy? when his term is up? It's OBAMA's economy now... he's the one who has to try and fix it, regardless of who or what broke it. OR, is it above his pay grade?
When does the president control it?
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When does the president control it?
As we've already agreed, he doesn't 'control' it. But policy can 'affect' it to a degree, either positively or negatively.

All I ever hear from the vast majority of liberals (present company excepted) is 'It's all Bushs fault'. But if the President has little direct 'control', how can it all be 'Bush's fault'? I am simply wondering when they expect Obama to try to 'affect' the economy in a positive way.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
As we've already agreed, he doesn't 'control' it. But policy can 'affect' it to a degree, either positively or negatively.

All I ever hear from the vast majority of liberals (present company excepted) is 'It's all Bushs fault'. But if the President has little direct 'control', how can it all be 'Bush's fault'? I am simply wondering when they expect Obama to try to 'affect' the economy in a positive way.
If you believe policy effects it, you have to acknowledge Bush policy. If you're blaming Obama, you would also have to blame Bush. If you believe no president controls the economy, you have to look elsewhere. While many on both sides fail to grasp this, it is important that we start understanding a lot more factors effect the economy than the president or even government as a whole can control. Perhaps we should stop looking for government to fix it.

Just saying . . .
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you believe policy effects it, you have to acknowledge Bush policy. If you're blaming Obama, you would also have to blame Bush. If you believe no president controls the economy, you have to look elsewhere. While many on both sides fail to grasp this, it is important that we start understanding a lot more factors effect the economy than the president or even government as a whole can control. Perhaps we should stop looking for government to fix it.

Just saying . . .
I never said Bush had no blame in the current state of the economy. Not once. I said that it was hypocritical for liberals (again, present company excepted) to continually blame it all on Bush, while simultaniously absolving Obama of any responsibility.

While neither one had complete control of the economy, their policies have affected it.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I never said Bush had no blame in the current state of the economy. Not once. I said that it was hypocritical for liberals (again, present company excepted) to continually blame it all on Bush, while simultaniously absolving Obama of any responsibility.

While neither one had complete control of the economy, their policies have affected it.
Fair enough. But I will keep pointing out government doesn't control the economy. I hope both sides see this.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Control in it's entirety, certainly not. Affect via policy/legislation, also certainly.
Even that is limited. Among all the factors involving the economy, governmental effect is very limited. And what effect they have, is often midgated by what would happen without their efforts (think regulation). Preventing harmfull aspects are important. And business will adjust and still profit much even with regulations.
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Even that is limited. Among all the factors involving the economy, governmental effect is very limited. And what effect they have, is often midgated by what would happen without their efforts (think regulation). Preventing harmfull aspects are important. And business will adjust and still profit much even with regulations.
I don't know about the 'mitigated' part of your comment, but I do not disagree with the rest.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't know about the 'mitigated' part of your comment, but I do not disagree with the rest.
Well, I can live with that. But making sure food is safe, regulation, midogates, or justifies having some regulation. But, I think we're close enough.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
All I ever hear from the vast majority of liberals (present company excepted) is 'It's all Bushs fault'. But if the President has little direct 'control', how can it all be 'Bush's fault'? I am simply wondering when they expect Obama to try to 'affect' the economy in a positive way.
If, God forbid, The Obama is re-elected and the economy it still in the tank near the end of His 2nd term, He, and His useful idiots, will STILL blame Bush.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If, God forbid, The Obama is re-elected and the economy it still in the tank near the end of His 2nd term, He, and His useful idiots, will STILL blame Bush.
Will you agree neither is to blame?
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yep, instead we should cut taxes and that will leave us with a great economy like Obama was left with. So simple a kid could understand it...
Cut taxes, less money for the government to spend on new jobs...

Is that simple enough for you, or do you want pictures?

ricksfolly
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,280
Reaction score
32,396
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Cut taxes, less money for the government to spend on new jobs...

Is that simple enough for you, or do you want pictures?

ricksfolly
1) When has the government ever cared about how much money it actually had?
2) With the lowest taxes pretty much ever, how come our economy isn't booming?
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1) When has the government ever cared about how much money it actually had?
2) With the lowest taxes pretty much ever, how come our economy isn't booming?
1. It's not a matter of caring. It's a matter of fiscal expediency.

2. Overstocking, lack of meaningful regulations, widening gap between rich and poor, media and political interests reporting only bad news, fear of the future, limited buying, overextended credit, unsecured loans, too much business competition, phony advertisements, failed small businesses, back-breaking raises in health insurance, businesses unloading all their deadwood, and no new products people can't live without.

ricksfolly
 

Le Marteau

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
113
Location
London, England and Dijon, France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The liberal weenies will see only this...

...and claim a huge victory for Obama, saying he is reducing the deficit as promised. :roll:
I know I'm digressing a bit (okay, a lot), and I'll respond to the main topic soon, but I've always been wondering about the paradoxical relationship between the American right's perception of the left, and their derogatory terms for it.

There are many apt names the left could call the right, and the right could call the left. But it seems rather... Unsupported, to claim that the left are "weenies" -- unless the American definition of the word is different than the British definition.

To me, a "weenie" is a push-over, a weakling, or someone scared to stand up for what they believe in. To me, it would seem that the left, with its history of spawning bloody revolutions and unstoppable military juggernauts (from Alexander the Great, to the French Revolution and Napoleon, to the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union, and everywhere inbetween), would be the less "weenie" of the two sides -- and a better derogatory term might be "bloodthirsty".

Unless, of course, "weenie" only refers to the American liberal movement -- for which I suppose I can understand the term, as most American liberals have typically fallen severely behind their global countreparts on instigating reform and social progress in the States.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I know I'm digressing a bit (okay, a lot), and I'll respond to the main topic soon, but I've always been wondering about the paradoxical relationship between the American right's perception of the left, and their derogatory terms for it.
Look at politics as a football game with grandstands on both sides of the field. The left side with rabid liberals, the right side with rabid conservatives. Both hurling insults and other demeaning shouts at each other and at each others other's teams.

It's about overly dedicated players and overly concerned spectators winning at all costs... anyway they can.

ricksfolly
 
Top Bottom