This Is One Scary Clock

I find this interesting:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

So to simplify...Bush bad. Obama, FAR WORSE.

Props to you for reconsidering your stance, not everyone is willing to do that. There are definitely things we can do to reduce spending but none of them are things everyone in the nation will agree on. They are hard decisions but ones we have to make:

- Increase the Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages.

- Privatize social security so that we can earn a better return on our investments.

- Cut Medicare and/or social security benefits.

- Trim defense spending.

- Cut welfare benefits.

- Trim the prison system via much shorter sentences allowing for prison closures and layoffs.

- Ensure one-time spending tied to Obama's economic recovery act does not repeat itself.

And lots others but those are the biggies.

Heck I bet if we just cut back on all the waistful projects we could save a ton of money. Let the states bitch all they want but the federal goverment has to down size and stop taking all of our tax money and passing it around to who ever yells the loudest.

ok i have done some research. I must say that i was not fully aware of the sitaution. I am not saying that i am an expert either. You guys have a valid point. Calling me a retard and intellectually lazy may not have been the preferred route, but it got my attention.

Anyway, as serious as the deficit is, it is almost foolish to think that anything can be done about it without serious cuts in defense spending and ss/healthcare programs.

Going back to my original post which i ignorantly blurted out, i would like to retract it. I ask this question though "what can really be done, and how much of that can we really do?" we cannot fly a jumbo jet from the toilet seat in the back of the plane.
nice work......httr

Heck I bet if we just cut back on all the waistful projects we could save a ton of money. Let the states bitch all they want but the federal goverment has to down size and stop taking all of our tax money and passing it around to who ever yells the loudest.

How about start with the 350bil or so we WASTE on illegal immigrants???

I've said it before and I'll say it again...if the gov bailed out HOMEOWNERS instead of businesses, our country would have had an instant rebound! Don't think for one second there would not have been some other company willing to pick up where GM (for instance) left off. If you can't run your company to profit, you need to shut down, not be bailed out.

We have a TON of wasteful projects, not sure any of them are going to be cut back, or cut out.

I have not really heard.......much of ANY politico want to get a discussion going in the immigration arena..........not good

I've said it before and I'll say it again...if the gov bailed out HOMEOWNERS instead of businesses, our country would have had an instant rebound! Don't think for one second there would not have been some other company willing to pick up where GM (for instance) left off. If you can't run your company to profit, you need to shut down, not be bailed out.

I pretty much agree when it comes to bailing out auto companies, but I disagree with respect to TARP. Had the government let all the banks fail, new ones would not have sprouted up in their place overnight. We were facing a massive, massive meltdown that even ardent free marketeers (e.g., Paulson) agreed necessitated the stimulus spending and investments.

I pretty much agree when it comes to bailing out auto companies, but I disagree with respect to TARP. Had the government let all the banks fail, new ones would not have sprouted up in their place overnight. We were facing a massive, massive meltdown that even ardent free marketeers (e.g., Paulson) agreed necessitated the stimulus spending and investments.

But not ALL banks needed bailouts...there would be several in line that would have benefited from those banks going under. If ALL the banks would fail, I would agree with you, but it wasn't ALL banks. There are still plenty of banks that have a quality way of doing business.

The Trouble With Trillions - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/25/john-lott-trillion-deficit-obama/)

Not trying to restart the debate here, just found this funny. Wasn't the title of the article a Star Trek episode....LOL (yes it's late in the day and I know it was Tribbles).

SB33 -

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

That should get us through page 10.

SB33 -

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

That should get us through page 10.:benched: LOL LOL