If Congress passed the budget, the deficit in 2011 would reach 8.3% of the U.S. gross domestic product -- down from a high this year of 10.6%. By 2014, it would drop to 3.9%.

The long-term goal is for the deficit to reach 3% of GDP, which many economists consider sustainable. But reaching that goals depends on the establishment of a bipartisan fiscal commission that Obama would create by executive order.

According to White House estimates, the federal government was on track to add another $10.6 trillion to the nation's debt over the next 10 years. But, should the changes from this budget be adopted, the debt accrued would be reduced to $8.5 trillion.

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:Paranoid stylin!

Oh... there are many reasons to call for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama and there is more than just cause to call for his impeachment.

But as Bruce said, Obama's "unabated malevolence toward this country, which is unabated" makes it all the more imperative that we take action now... without delay.

How long must we wait... how long should we sit back and permit Barack Hussein Obama to rip apart the fabric of this country before we take action?
Are you terrified at Barack Obama’s campaign to change our country into a third-world nation?

Are you willing to sit back and watch Obama bulldoze our great nation?

Are you willing to let him construct a totalitarian regime... fascism, socialism, Obamaism... take your pick?
If any of the above scenarios concern you... join us.

Who are these people? Do they get air-time? Policy Issues Institute?

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Haven't seen this posted
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/news/economy/Obama_budget/index.htm?hpt=T2

If Congress passed the budget, the deficit in 2011 would reach 8.3% of the U.S. gross domestic product -- down from a high this year of 10.6%. By 2014, it would drop to 3.9%.

The long-term goal is for the deficit to reach 3% of GDP, which many economists consider sustainable. But reaching that goals depends on the establishment of a bipartisan fiscal commission that Obama would create by executive order.

According to White House estimates, the federal government was on track to add another $10.6 trillion to the nation's debt over the next 10 years. But, should the changes from this budget be adopted, the debt accrued would be reduced to $8.5 trillion.

Look, America: here's your problem. Your eyes are bigger than your stomachs. Your big mouths write checks your fat asses can't or won't cash. You want your government to spend more and more on entitlements, actual wars and preparation for wars that might or might not ever happen, subsidies for businesses, and big new social programs to help deliver goods such as education and health coverage. At the same time, you want to pay less and less in taxes, to the point where if anybody even suggests letting old tax cuts expire, some of you screech that they're reaching into your pocket so deeply they're grabbing your junk as well as your money.

Basically it's like this: you can pay more for more government, or less for less government. But what you're trying to do now--pay less for more government and make up the difference by borrowing from people who ultimately don't wish you well--isn't sustainable.

You need to set some priorities about both what's important to you from that wish list--entitlements, wars, other spending--and how much you're willing to pay both for the goodies you want and the goodies you might not personally want but that a majority of your fellow citizens wants. If you can start thinking clearly on those two questions, we can restore some rationality to our budgeting, and just doing that will yield some good economic results as the markets start to believe that you're collectively regaining your sanity.

jerseyhoya wrote:"Tom, can you go out to the store and pick up a gallon of milk?"

"I can't right now dear, I'm busy."

*Looks back at mirror, holding stick of deodorant in hand as prop mic*

"SWINGANDAMISS! Roy Halladay is throwing anything but tastycakes out there today on the mound! That's 2 down in the bottom of the seventh, with the Marlins' Jorge Cantu digging in at the plate**."

*Self satisfied smile*
**Boner**

Phan In Phlorida wrote:So unabated that the unabatedness itself is unabated.

traderdave wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:Paranoid stylin!

Oh... there are many reasons to call for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama and there is more than just cause to call for his impeachment.

But as Bruce said, Obama's "unabated malevolence toward this country, which is unabated" makes it all the more imperative that we take action now... without delay.

How long must we wait... how long should we sit back and permit Barack Hussein Obama to rip apart the fabric of this country before we take action?
Are you terrified at Barack Obama’s campaign to change our country into a third-world nation?

Are you willing to sit back and watch Obama bulldoze our great nation?

Are you willing to let him construct a totalitarian regime... fascism, socialism, Obamaism... take your pick?
If any of the above scenarios concern you... join us.

Who are these people? Do they get air-time? Policy Issues Institute?

From their website:

"We are a committed group of citizens concerned that President Obama’s liberal policies are a mistake for America.

Policy Issues Institute was found in 2001, and our programs have impacted millions of people. We are organized by policy projects.

Our current projects are http://thewhitehousewatch.com and http://impeachobamacampaign.com.

Our job is to fight Obama’s radical agenda in the US Congress and in the public debate.

We post news, videos and exclusive material seven days a week, so bookmark http://thewhitehousewatch.com and visit often. You can also subscribe to our RSS feed.

Barack Obama is not the president of hope (for a better tomorrow, victory over Islamic Fascism, a stronger economy, less regulation, lower taxes) and change (uphold the Constitution, reduce the federal government to its Constitutional mandates, appoint conservative judges), rather he is a president who hopes for the kind of change that the lessons of history repudiate (increased social spending, increased entitlements, increased regulation, socialist control the economy, reductions in the military and negotiate with our enemies).

He hasn’t brought unity or harmony, rather he has brought back the confusion, depression and humiliation of the dismal Carter era.

We ask you to join us, with your support and finances, as together we wor to stop the Obama agenda."

Obama was President in 2001? Obama has caused "reductions in the military"?

dajafi wrote:I'd have tremendous respect for any politician, of any party, who basically said this:

Never gonna happen, I know.

TenuredVulture wrote:
Step 1: Develop a populist website expressing some paranoid conspiracy theory
Step 2: Solicit funds
Step 3: Profit.

traderdave wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
Step 1: Develop a populist website expressing some paranoid conspiracy theory
Step 2: Solicit funds
Step 3: Profit.

I saw that any donation over $10 gets you a free tinfoil hat. Dajafi - where did that "Look, America" thing come from?

dajafi wrote:

traderdave wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
Step 1: Develop a populist website expressing some paranoid conspiracy theory
Step 2: Solicit funds
Step 3: Profit.

I saw that any donation over $10 gets you a free tinfoil hat. Dajafi - where did that "Look, America" thing come from?

I, um, made that up.

dajafi wrote:I'd have tremendous respect for any politician, of any party, who basically said this:

Look, America: here's your problem. Your eyes are bigger than your stomachs. Your big mouths write checks your fat asses can't or won't cash. You want your government to spend more and more on entitlements, actual wars and preparation for wars that might or might not ever happen, subsidies for businesses, and big new social programs to help deliver goods such as education and health coverage. At the same time, you want to pay less and less in taxes, to the point where if anybody even suggests letting old tax cuts expire, some of you screech that they're reaching into your pocket so deeply they're grabbing your junk as well as your money.

Basically it's like this: you can pay more for more government, or less for less government. But what you're trying to do now--pay less for more government and make up the difference by borrowing from people who ultimately don't wish you well--isn't sustainable.

You need to set some priorities about both what's important to you from that wish list--entitlements, wars, other spending--and how much you're willing to pay both for the goodies you want and the goodies you might not personally want but that a majority of your fellow citizens wants. If you can start thinking clearly on those two questions, we can restore some rationality to our budgeting, and just doing that will yield some good economic results as the markets start to believe that you're collectively regaining your sanity.

Never gonna happen, I know.

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:I'd have tremendous respect for any politician, of any party, who basically said this:

Look, America: here's your problem. Your eyes are bigger than your stomachs. Your big mouths write checks your fat asses can't or won't cash. You want your government to spend more and more on entitlements, actual wars and preparation for wars that might or might not ever happen, subsidies for businesses, and big new social programs to help deliver goods such as education and health coverage. At the same time, you want to pay less and less in taxes, to the point where if anybody even suggests letting old tax cuts expire, some of you screech that they're reaching into your pocket so deeply they're grabbing your junk as well as your money.

Basically it's like this: you can pay more for more government, or less for less government. But what you're trying to do now--pay less for more government and make up the difference by borrowing from people who ultimately don't wish you well--isn't sustainable.

You need to set some priorities about both what's important to you from that wish list--entitlements, wars, other spending--and how much you're willing to pay both for the goodies you want and the goodies you might not personally want but that a majority of your fellow citizens wants. If you can start thinking clearly on those two questions, we can restore some rationality to our budgeting, and just doing that will yield some good economic results as the markets start to believe that you're collectively regaining your sanity.

Never gonna happen, I know.

It just doesn't seem reasonable to place social programs like Head Start, or Welfare Stamps, or New Hiways and Bridges, next to Military expansionsim and trumped up national security interests.

I wouldn't say that USA should withdraw all participation from the entire globe to where we would beceome vulnerable. But its a far cry from trying to help keep the peace, keep tabs on genuine fringe elements, and trying to control the world at the end of our guns, to protect corporate interests and control geo-politics around the globe.

You want to REALLY export democracy, you want those platitudes both parties espouse in speeches to have some real meaning -- then let's get things on track back here. Have a healthier, happier, less violent, more educated, country -- and genuinely help other stand on their own and be safe, not train Junta generals who overthrow duly elected democratic presidents (thinks Iran 50's Chile 70's, Haiti 00's, any number of others) And truly work in consensus with UN -- rather than protect nigerian oil interests and all the rest ...

Fractions of the money spent on military bloat and national security paranoias -- would fund every social program and then some...

Welfare Stamps

dajafi wrote:My point wasn't to discuss the merits of the categories of expenditure that comprise our budget problem, but rather that a very basic disconnect exists between our revenues and expenditures. While some pols are more realistic about this than others--Tim Pawlenty is a fast-rising hopeful for Dumbest of Them All--none of them have said anything approaching what I think we as a country need to hear, if indeed we're serious about this whole budget thing.

cshort wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:I'd have tremendous respect for any politician, of any party, who basically said this:

Look, America: here's your problem. Your eyes are bigger than your stomachs. Your big mouths write checks your fat asses can't or won't cash. You want your government to spend more and more on entitlements, actual wars and preparation for wars that might or might not ever happen, subsidies for businesses, and big new social programs to help deliver goods such as education and health coverage. At the same time, you want to pay less and less in taxes, to the point where if anybody even suggests letting old tax cuts expire, some of you screech that they're reaching into your pocket so deeply they're grabbing your junk as well as your money.

Basically it's like this: you can pay more for more government, or less for less government. But what you're trying to do now--pay less for more government and make up the difference by borrowing from people who ultimately don't wish you well--isn't sustainable.

You need to set some priorities about both what's important to you from that wish list--entitlements, wars, other spending--and how much you're willing to pay both for the goodies you want and the goodies you might not personally want but that a majority of your fellow citizens wants. If you can start thinking clearly on those two questions, we can restore some rationality to our budgeting, and just doing that will yield some good economic results as the markets start to believe that you're collectively regaining your sanity.

Never gonna happen, I know.

It just doesn't seem reasonable to place social programs like Head Start, or Welfare Stamps, or New Hiways and Bridges, next to Military expansionsim and trumped up national security interests.

I wouldn't say that USA should withdraw all participation from the entire globe to where we would beceome vulnerable. But its a far cry from trying to help keep the peace, keep tabs on genuine fringe elements, and trying to control the world at the end of our guns, to protect corporate interests and control geo-politics around the globe.

You want to REALLY export democracy, you want those platitudes both parties espouse in speeches to have some real meaning -- then let's get things on track back here. Have a healthier, happier, less violent, more educated, country -- and genuinely help other stand on their own and be safe, not train Junta generals who overthrow duly elected democratic presidents (thinks Iran 50's Chile 70's, Haiti 00's, any number of others) And truly work in consensus with UN -- rather than protect nigerian oil interests and all the rest ...

Fractions of the money spent on military bloat and national security paranoias -- would fund every social program and then some...

PTK, I don't disagree with alot of what you're saying, but try telling some congressman you're closing a base in his state (which the Pentagon has). Can't hurt the local economy.

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:My point wasn't to discuss the merits of the categories of expenditure that comprise our budget problem, but rather that a very basic disconnect exists between our revenues and expenditures. While some pols are more realistic about this than others--Tim Pawlenty is a fast-rising hopeful for Dumbest of Them All--none of them have said anything approaching what I think we as a country need to hear, if indeed we're serious about this whole budget thing.

Surely you get the difference in orders of magnitude when it comes to Military spending?! It's not like, we earn this, we spend that, let's be more realistic. Obama said he wanted to freeze things except national security and military. Which is the bulk of the expense. Which the populace doesn't necessarily support at all, especially when they've been lied to and manipulated for years about scary bogeymen coming to take away their liberty.

It's outrageous.

Keep in mind, in the glory years of Clinton, we had supposedly a surplus?

Let's not get in to the messed up trade deficit or how China has prop'd the dollar...