quote:

Originally posted by bananas But seriously, I didnt have a in depth look into the American situation, but just to take look how other countries have dealt with financial crysis (my own country included) - you cut your expenses, you raise the taxes, just tighten your belt for a couple of years. Aint that the appropriate course of action?

There are many ways to skin the cat... but in this last debate and the bill that was produced as a result, it was nothing more than a bunch of spineless politicians playing games and looking out for their own political futures.


Mark Steyn summed it up best:

quote:

"Cutting federal spending by $900 billion over 10 years" is Washington-speak for increasing federal spending by $7 trillion over 10 years. And, as Washington had originally planned to increase it by $8 trillion, that counts as a cut. If they'd planned to increase it by $20 trillion and then settled for merely $15 trillion, they could have saved five trillion. See how easy this is? And, if none of these parties seems inclined to pay down the debt now, what are the chances they'll feel like doing so by 2020 when, under these historic "cuts," it's up to $23 trillion-$25 trillion?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Not just out of here. Out of the US, entirely.

That's what I'm saying.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong It's a revenue problem, not a spending problem? America would be on the path to prosperity if the government just took more tax revenue? The same government that spends trillions on banksters and immoral wars? Medicare on pace to consume GDP in two generations, but tax breaks for the rich are the problem?

nobody has said its not a spending problem, learn to read ffs. the bailout funds have mostly been paid back too FYI.

you say its a spending problem? so what is a spending problem other than spending too much? and how does one define "too much" do you think? perhaps compared to revenue? do you think tax cuts might decrease revenue just a bit? ya thunk? sheesh.

quote:

Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1). The deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at nearly 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II. If current policies are continued without changes, deficits will likely approach those figures in 2010 and remain near $1 trillion a year for the next decade. ... Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections. Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1). Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nobody has said its not a spending problem, learn to read ffs. the bailout funds have mostly been paid back too FYI.

This is horse shit. It was recently revealed that this was basically done by robbing Peter to pay Paul; the banks "repaid" the Treasury by borrowing from other programs run by the Treasury... not from actual earnings or new investment returns. More smoke and mirrors out of Washington.
Check it out man---> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dani...-205658852.html

quote:

you say its a spending problem? so what is a spending problem other than spending too much? and how does one define "too much" do you think? perhaps compared to revenue? do you think tax cuts might decrease revenue just a bit? ya thunk? sheesh.

I would say immediately yes, but shortly thereafter, when the market is sparked, no. This is factual data, not me blowing smoke up your ass. Following the 2003 tax cut:

Revenue to the Treasury
2003: 1.782 Trillion
2004: 1.88 Trillion
2005: 2.153 Trillion
2006: 2.406 Trillion
2007: 2.567 Trillion

TOTAL revenue increase: 44%

quote:

Originally posted by idoru That's what I'm saying.

I know.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Not just out of here. Out of the US, entirely.

exactamundo.

the focus of thought should be how to fix it.

___________________

The fucked up thing is, they know how to fix it. They just won't do it because the tough love required to do so will jeopardize their chances in the next election... and they'll do anything to have their lavish political lifestyles maintained first.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This is horse shit. It was recently revealed that this was basically done by robbing Peter to pay Paul; the banks "repaid" the Treasury by borrowing from other programs run by the Treasury... not from actual earnings or new investment returns. More smoke and mirrors out of Washington. Check it out man---> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dani...-205658852.html

ill have to get back to you on that one. im sure you understand i dont take you at your word

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I would say immediately yes, but shortly thereafter, when the market is sparked, no. This is factual data, not me blowing smoke up your ass. Following the 2003 tax cut: Revenue to the Treasury 2003: 1.782 Trillion 2004: 1.88 Trillion 2005: 2.153 Trillion 2006: 2.406 Trillion 2007: 2.567 Trillion TOTAL revenue increase: 44%

No.

quote:

Myth 2: Even if the tax cuts reduced revenues initially, they boosted revenues and lowered deficits in 2005 to 2007. “Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit… Today’s numbers [the updated 2006 budget projections] show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.” — President Bush, July 11, 2006 Reality: Robust revenue growth in 2005-2007 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years. When discussing revenue growth since the enactment of the tax cuts, Administration officials typically focus only on revenue growth since 2004. This provides a convenient starting point for their arguments, as it sets a very low bar. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, revenues fell in nominal terms (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) for three straight years, the first time this has occurred since before World War II. Measured as a share of the economy, revenues in 2004 were at their lowest level since 1959. Given this historically low starting point, it is not surprising that revenues have recovered since then. Supporters of the tax cuts selectively cite revenue growth over just the past three years to argue that the tax cuts fueled increases in revenues. Even taking into account the growth in revenues in fiscal years 2005-2007, total revenues have just barely increased over the 2001-2007 business cycle, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. (The business cycle began in March 2001, when the 1990s business cycle hit its peak and thereby came to an end.) In contrast, six and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 12 percent, and in the 1990s, real per-capita revenues were up 16 percent (see Table 1). Revenues in 2007 were still more than $250 billion short of where they would have been had they grown at the rates typical in other recoveries. Further, while the Administration has credited the tax cuts with the drop in the fiscal year 2007 deficit to “only” $162 billion, the 2007 budget would have been in surplus were it not for the tax cuts. Based on Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the total 2007 cost of tax cuts enacted since January 2001 was $300 billion (taking into account the increased interest costs on the debt that have resulted from the deficit financing of the tax cuts). This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if their costs had been offset. While supporters of these tax cuts claim that their positive economic effects have lowered their cost, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found in a September, 2006 report that “at the current time, as the stimulus effects have faded and the effect of added debt service has grown, the 2001-2004 tax cuts are probably costing more than their estimated revenue cost.” Looking out over the next several decades, when deficits are projected to be far larger (because of the impact on the budget of the continued rise in health care costs and the retirement of the baby boomers), the tax cuts, if extended, will still be a major contributor to the nation’s fiscal problems. (http://www.cbpp.org/1-29-07bud.htm) To put the long-run cost of the tax cuts in perspective, the 75-year Social Security shortfall, about which the President and Congressional leaders have expressed grave concern, is less than one-third the cost of the tax cuts over the same period.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The fucked up thing is, they know how to fix it. They just won't do it because the tough love required to do so will jeopardize their chances in the next election... and they'll do anything to have their lavish political lifestyles maintained first.

Seriously, are they that stupid? I don't think so...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ill have to get back to you on that one. im sure you understand i dont take you at your word

im sorry mate. all i see is a bunch of miniscule amounts recorded in $M. im not seeing anywhere near the numbers to support your claim that the banks have paid back bailouts by borrowing from treasury. where are the hundreds of billions?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sorry mate. all i see is a bunch of miniscule amounts recorded in $M. im not seeing anywhere near the numbers to support your claim that the banks have paid back bailouts by borrowing from treasury. where are the hundreds of billions?

you didn't read the whole article... I can tell.