2019: $9,300,000,000,000 worth of red ink

[Escaep]

Experts predict a $9.3 trillion dollar deficit by 2019 if Obama keeps up his current spending.

President Obama's budget would generate unsustainably large deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to new estimates released Friday.
The new Congressional Budget Office figures predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the administration predicted in its budget just last month.

Wonder how many of my generations will be paying this off.

 

[unozero]

Obama is the troll of the century lol.

 

[The Monkey]

Taxes need to be raised.

 

[Warped]

new currency please

 

[Emporius]

Cabbages.

 

[Remus]

Obama is the troll of the century lol.

In public - It's time to rebuild America, and come back stronger than before, bla bla, etc.

In private - Hahah, those suckers actually think there's still hope! Ahahah. Oh, I crack myself up.

 

[Sheepo]

Taxing and spending is better than spending and spending.

 

[Warped]

no taxes and no spending and paying off debt is the only solution to the problem. theres enough money out there for everyone but unfortunately we print $$$ like its water and the Federal Reserve keeps getting richer and richer off of the interest.

 

[Emporius]

no taxes and no spending and paying off debt is the only solution to the problem.

And where are they going to get money for paying off the debt then?

 

[Warped]

And where are they going to get money for paying off the debt then?

from the money in circulation right now. all the lazy people should get jobs. also if people didn't pass up those janitorial and landscaping jobs, new immigrants wouldn't come here by the truck loads

EDIT: Also if this keeps happening the economy will surely fail:

U.S. seizes 2 big credit unions
U.S. takes over two credit unions after tests find vulnerability. U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and WesCorp have combined assets of $57 billion.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The federal government, in its latest effort to prop up the financial system, took over two big wholesale credit unions Friday with combined assets of $57 billion.

U.S. Central Federal Credit Union in Lenexa, Kan., and Western Corporate Federal Credit Union in San Dimas, Calif., were placed under conservatorship "to stabilize the corporate credit union system and resolve balance sheet issues," according to the National Credit Union Administration.

The administration is a federal agency that regulates, charters and supervises federal credit unions.

Neither of the failed institutions serve consumers directly. As corporate credit unions, they service the credit union system. Credit unions count 90 million members nationwide.

Members of the two credit unions will not experience any disruption in service and are free to make deposits and access funds, according to the regulator.

U.S. Central Federal Credit Union has about $34 billion in assets, with 26 retail corporate credit union members. WesCorp has $23 billion in assets and approximately 1,100 retail credit union members.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/20/news/companies/credit_unions/index.htm?cnn=yes

watch the stock markets tumble come Monday

 

[Sheepo]

from the money in circulation right now.

How would they get any of the money in circulation without taxing?

 

[Krynn72]

I think its pretty presumptuous to call them your generations. We dont even know if slavery will be reinstated by then, let along that you will have enough money to buy multiple generations of people.

 

[Sheepo]

Crynn is so nutty.

 

[Warped]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrpouWRBOQo

Best rant EVAR!! this guy is probably going to kill someone very soon I can feel it!

 

[Raziaar]

Listen people. You have to spend money to make money. If you don't spend money on building infrastructure for the country, and innovating and fueling a whole new industry to drive this country forward into the future, to meet future demands, it just isn't going to get done.

You either spend money properly to get this country moving again on the right track headed towards the future, or you sit back on your asses, do nothing, and wonder why this country is no longer an innovative, superior power in the world. It will just continue to decay if you don't fuel revitalization, and some of these morons out there don't realize that.

There's also a big difference between spending money poorly, and spending money wisely. Simply spending money isn't a bad thing, as long as it's used as an investment that will yield returns.

 

[lame-o]

Listen people. You have to spend money to make money. If you don't spend money on building infrastructure for the country, and innovating and fueling a whole new industry to drive this country forward into the future, to meet future demands, it just isn't going to get done.

You either spend money properly to get this country moving again on the right track headed towards the future, or you sit back on your asses, do nothing, and wonder why this country is no longer an innovative, superior power in the world. It will just continue to decay if you don't fuel revitalization, and some of these morons out there don't realize that.

There's also a big difference between spending money poorly, and spending money wisely. Simply spending money isn't a bad thing, as long as it's used as an investment that will yield returns.

Exactly. Stop fearing debts and red ink, because if America does what it is supposed to do then the debts will erase themselves. The fact that Obama's plan is putting the US further in debt now just means he's doing something.

 

[jet_porkins]

Everyone thinks they are an economist.

 

[Raziaar]

Oh, I'm not speaking from the position of an economist. I'm speaking from the position of somebody who has common sense enough to know that if you do nothing, nothing gets done.

If you do nothing, nothing gets done.



And conversely, if you do something, then something may get done. Spend time and effort to investigate the root causes. Plan and execute methods designed to alleviate and turn around the problem. Then and only then really, will things have a chance of getting better. As long as you're sure to plan things out and handle the money wisely.


Think of it like this... a common sense analogy. You're poor and you come up with a fool proof idea to accumulate wealth by stashing all your cash underneath your mattress. Do you become rich? Of course not... in fact you're losing money as it becomes devalued due to inflation. It's a terrible and ill thought out plan and basically amounted to doing absolutely nothing to fix the problem.


I'm not a supporter of just throwing money at the problem. I am however a big supporter of spending money intelligently to turn the economy around and at the same time prepare ourselves for the future... like creating jobs and an economy for cleaner power and independence from all oil(not just foreign oil) at a government level rather than leaving private companies to attempt it alone in the field.

Our economy and society as a whole doesn't really have the capacity of homeostasis. If everyone just let things be, they aren't going to magically right themselves and come back into a healthy balance. They will just continue to remain shitty, and may become worse even. To achieve that equilibrium and prosper, people have to do something about it. And who better to do something about a crisis than a governmental entity that sets out to do it in a responsible way.

If our citizens just demand that politicians sit back and do nothing, we're going to end up as a ****ing second world country, no good to the world and no good to ourselves. The countries that own a stake of our debt are going to end up reigning it in especially since we're no longer healthful and able to provide profit and stability to the world market, and they're going to swoop in here and use our large swaths of land to make a profit for themselves at our expense.


EDIT: Sorry about the unstructured nature of my post... sort of added paragraph after paragraph at different times.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Either the Government has a deficit or the people have a deficit; either way we are all f*cked together, it doesn't matter if Obama is in office or its John Doe, things will still get worse

 

[Mr Stabby]

Oh, I'm not speaking from the position of an economist. I'm speaking from the position of somebody who has common sense enough to know that if you do nothing, nothing gets done.

If you do nothing, nothing gets done.

It is the accepted view of many economists thats the new deal was more harm than good, and that governemnt intervention doesn't solve problems any quicker than the markets themselves.

Due to the corporate domination of the media they will tell you that a fall in consumer spending is terrible. It's only terrible if you're a corporation but it means that people are saving their money which is a good thing.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

It is the accepted view of many economists thats the new deal was more harm than good, and that governemnt intervention doesn't solve problems any quicker than the markets themselves.

Due to the corporate domination of the media they will tell you that a fall in consumer spending is terrible. It's only terrible if you're a corporation but it means that people are saving their money which is a good thing.

Yes, but if people are hanging on to their money then the circulation stops. We need people to spend as well. If no one is spending businesses fail causing the lose of jobs. Right now the Government doesn't want you to save, hence the reason they've cut interest rates. You get no interest on your saving cause they want you to spend the money and stimulate the economy.

The issues was during the boom, Britain and America borrowed to much when we should have been paying it back. During the boom years we could regulate how much we were borrowing and keep it within reasonable levels. However this financial problem has thrown that out the window and now we are seeing the extent of years of Government debt.

 

[Mr Stabby]

In regards to cirrculation, due to the fact the econmy isn't growing, one person can only make money at the expense of another.

So in my view in a zero sum situtation, it's better the money is in the hands of ordinary people than corporatations who are intent on giving bonuses to moronic executives.

 

[Operational]

It is the accepted view of many economists thats the new deal was more harm than good

And many economists argue differently, there is no consensis.

Due to the corporate domination of the media they will tell you that a fall in consumer spending is terrible. It's only terrible if you're a corporation but it means that people are saving their money which is a good thing.

I'm no economist but I'm pretty sure you are wrong here. At the end of the day businesses can only exist if people are buying their stuff, if people aren't spending businesses aren't going to make money and are going to reduce salaries/employees. People saving more money than usual due to an economic downturn is one of those odd scenarios where as individuals it's absolutely the right move but when everyone does it it makes things worse.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

In regards to cirrculation, due to the fact the econmy isn't growing, one person can only make money at the expense of another.

So in my view in a zero sum situtation, it's better the money is in the hands of ordinary people than corporatations who are intent on giving bonuses to moronic executives.

I agree fully that the hand outs shouldn't all go to the big corporations. They've already proven themselves incompetent in getting themselves in this situation, then continuing like nothing has happened. We need Tax breaks that help the ordinary people. Give us the money so we can spend it and stimulate the economy instead of giving the banks more and more and hoping they may lend out a slight bit of it to the taxpayer.

 

[Mr Stabby]

And many economists argue differently, there is no consensis.

But it's not just common sense to assume the goverment has to do something.

I'm no economist but I'm pretty sure you are wrong here. At the end of the day businesses can only exist if people are buying their stuff, if people aren't spending businesses aren't going to make money and are going to reduce salaries/employees. People saving more money than usual due to an economic downturn is one of those odd scenarios where as individuals it's absolutely the right move but when everyone does it it makes things worse.

While the economey is not growing business can only make money at the expense of individuals. The economic situation shouldn't be measured by just how wall street is doing. One of the reasons this recession is so bad is that no one has any savings.

I agree fully that the hand outs shouldn't all go to the big corporations. They've already proven themselves incompetent in getting themselves in this situation, then continuing like nothing has happened. We need Tax breaks that help the ordinary people. Give us the money so we can spend it and stimulate the economy instead of giving the banks more and more and hoping they may lend out a slight bit of it to the taxpayer.

Agreed.

 

[jverne]

so the real problem is actually overpopulation?

there's just to many of us to be all well off with our current technology?

 

[Zephos]

So, are we ****ed?

 

[Sheepo]

I say give capitalism a chance. Sink or swim and the government watches.

 

[Raziaar]

I agree fully that the hand outs shouldn't all go to the big corporations. They've already proven themselves incompetent in getting themselves in this situation, then continuing like nothing has happened. We need Tax breaks that help the ordinary people. Give us the money so we can spend it and stimulate the economy instead of giving the banks more and more and hoping they may lend out a slight bit of it to the taxpayer.

Yeah, when I mentioned spending before, I of course wasn't talking about throwing money at banks.

The money needs to be spent on infrastructure and new industry to create jobs and start ramping up our capacity to meet the energy needs of the future so we won't be fretting that we're going to collapse because we're so damn dependent on oil and other fossil fuels.

 

[No Limit]

no taxes and no spending and paying off debt is the only solution to the problem. theres enough money out there for everyone but unfortunately we print $$$ like its water and the Federal Reserve keeps getting richer and richer off of the interest.

Start leading by example. If you are so against government spending what in the world are you doing on the internets? Not only was the internet developed thanks to government funding but most of the fiber optic cable that brings the net to your home was paid for by the government. Also, stop driving on those damn roads, pave your own. That will show those pinkos in washington!

 

[Raziaar]

Start leading by example. If you are so against government spending what in the world are you doing on the internets? Not only was the internet developed thanks to government funding but most of the fiber optic cable that brings the net to your home was paid for by the government. Also, stop driving on those damn roads, pave your own. That will show those pinkos in washington!

See, this is the fundamental thing most people don't understand. This country is the way it is today due to tax dollars. Tax paying citizens built this country by funding infrastructure development.

People are so very content to bitch about potholes in the road of their town... or deteriorating shoulders on their country roads. But they're loathe to pay taxes which goes to fixing and repairing these things, and building newer and better things.

What's going to happen to those potholes if no money is allocated to them? They're going to multiply in number and get larger. They're going to cause vehicular damage and maybe even traffic accidents.

What's going to fix them? Well, if there's no city or county or state money, they're certainly not going to fix it. Farmer bob is going to have to fix it if he wants something done about it. And he may very well do that... but he's certainly not going to be able to keep pace with the maintenance. He's either going to give up, or the problem is going to escalate out of his control while he's spending absolutely all of his time repairing them.

Some people in this country are so anti-government and government spending, that they are completely against the notion of paying taxes to get important things done. They expect something from nothing.

And if they're expecting private businesses coming in and taking over all these responsibilities... that very well may happen. But they're STILL going to be charged for the services in the end. And they may end up being charged more, because companies do one thing... they pay attention to the bottom line. They're in it for the money, they're not in it to get the job done. City employees need to get paid for their job of course maintaining and building new infrastructure, but it's not like the city is out to turn a profit off fixing these potholes. They're allocated a budget to deal with their issues and they try to make it work.

And this is just basic common sense. I think more people in this country are willing to spend money to fight wars overseas than they are to spend money to maintain roads and our power supply though.

 

[No Limit]

Things like roads, police, the post office, etc are easy to see. And anti federal government folks can point to state government taking care of that. What these people don't understand is that most of the technology break throughs we have had over the last 100 years have been largely due to the federal government spending money. And for how much we have developed in the technology department so far is nothing compared to what we are about to develop. Nanotech, electron accelerators, etc, are all funded by governments and they will change our world for the better. I don't know about anyone else here, but I sure as hell don't want to go back to the 1700s.

 

[Saturos]

I say give capitalism a chance. Sink or swim and the government watches.

^This

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I had to get my two cents on this topic before it gets archived.

I myself prefer to lead my own way rather than letting the government do it for me. The more dough the government hands out, the more control they have over it's pupils. That's socialism, which isn't too far from communism tbh and with communism comes authoritarian, then eventually totalitarian.

America was established for people with dreams. If your not a go-getter and are a more laid back, non-materialistic person, then yes maybe a socialist government would be more for you.

U.S. citizens, vote libertarian next term. It's got the best of both socialism and capitalism. :thumbs:

 

[Warped]

Things like roads, police, the post office, etc are easy to see. And anti federal government folks can point to state government taking care of that. What these people don't understand is that most of the technology break throughs we have had over the last 100 years have been largely due to the federal government spending money. And for how much we have developed in the technology department so far is nothing compared to what we are about to develop. Nanotech, electron accelerators, etc, are all funded by governments and they will change our world for the better. I don't know about anyone else here, but I sure as hell don't want to go back to the 1700s.

but actually most of the breakthroughs come from Tesla who was so far advanced in his research we're still trying to figure them out today long after he died. he patented over 100 machines and IMO, is the father of our modern technology. All those people creating "new inventions" under tax payer dollars are finally getting what Tesla created a century ago. We live in a society that is pretty far behind technologically than where we should be because its damn near impossible to get everyone on the same page at the same time. You are correct in that most breakthroughs are from gov't spending, but you still should give some people credit for creating a whole new field.

 

[noQ]

I would really like to know how much is taught about politics/economics/society in America's compulsory education. After seeing these "teaparties" and more right-wing actions I'm really wondering how educated is the American public on taxing, socialism, economics, capitalism.
It seems to me that people don't see the benefits and cons of progressive taxing and socialism. Social-democracy is possible and it can be very beneficial for the people and it can not be abused if competent participatory democracy is achieved.
I'm not saying "rob the rich and give it to the poor", I'm just not really a materialistic guy. Money in my opinion isn't the greatest thing on the world, yet it is absolutely indispensable. People who want to get filthy rich can still have the liberty to do so and as they finances grow they are able to pay the according taxes.
Consumerism in my opinion is the worst thing ever, yet it is necessary in this overly capitalistic world. The current consumerism (not quite as much at this time due to recession) is not a sustainable lifestyle, so my political viewpoints are affected by my inner-environmentalist.
Argh, I don't know, maybe I'm just a "damn commie socialist".

 

[Eejit]

While the economey is not growing business can only make money at the expense of individuals. The economic situation shouldn't be measured by just how wall street is doing. One of the reasons this recession is so bad is that no one has any savings.

Not everyone is self-employed or civil servants though, so businesses failing means the individuals you're so worried about lose their jobs.

but actually most of the breakthroughs come from Tesla

Bullshit.
A lot of breakthroughs did, in a few specific fields, but he's hardly responsible for all scientific advances of the 20th century.

 

[jverne]

Bullshit.
A lot of breakthroughs did, in a few specific fields, but he's hardly responsible for all scientific advances of the 20th century.

i can't believe you actually went trough the trouble of replying to his stupid statement.

 

[Eejit]

Well if it's the only kinda of statement he makes it's polite to make him feel less ignored

 

[Absinthe]

all the lazy people should get jobs

Bravo, Warped. You have dissected this economic crisis to its very core. It's those ****ing lazy people.

 

[No Limit]

but actually most of the breakthroughs come from Tesla who was so far advanced in his research we're still trying to figure them out today long after he died. he patented over 100 machines and IMO, is the father of our modern technology. All those people creating "new inventions" under tax payer dollars are finally getting what Tesla created a century ago. We live in a society that is pretty far behind technologically than where we should be because its damn near impossible to get everyone on the same page at the same time. You are correct in that most breakthroughs are from gov't spending, but you still should give some people credit for creating a whole new field.

Others already pointed out how absurd your statement that Tesla is responsible for most breakthroughs in the 20th century. What you also seem to forget is that Tesla got his big breakthrough when the city of Chicago contracted him to light a fair using alternating current instead of contracting Edison who wanted to use direct current. So even in his case a lot of his success and future research was based on the fact that the government invested in a lot of his technology.