Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 9:19 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 3:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story. Why do so many people think that NOW is the time to try paying down the debt?! The economy had tanked and unemployment is over 8%. Yes, I'll say it... Now is the time to stimulate, get the economy back on it's feet and GO INTO MORE DEBT! We need to get people back to work and spending money first. Once things stabilize, then worry about paying it off. For example... Let's say you have a $20,000 credit card bill. (Don't get started on why it's not smart to have a credit card balance of that much. That would be correct for individuals, but NOT for the government.) AND YOU LOSE YOUR JOB. So you have little to no income. Is NOW the time to try and pay off that cc balance with money you don't have? Or would it be better to work as hard as you can to find a job, start making income again, even if it means you cc balance goes up to $30,000 to pay for rent, food and gas? After you get a new job, THEN you start paying it off. The government isn't an individual and it's not designed or meant to make a "profit". $16 trillion in debt is too much. EVERYONE can agree on that. But not having any debt isn't good fiscal policy either (for a government). Now isn't the right time to be having the debt argument. I believe in cutting spending, just not while the unemployment numbers are where they are. The markets reflect this. Talk of government stimulus makes the market go up. Look at the reaction to the market from yesterday's EU CB announcement. Gov't cut talks make the market fall and investors sell, Gov't spend talks make the market rise and investors buy. It's a s simple as that. When the economy improves and the gov't talks of deficit reduction in a GOOD economy, that will spur on markets as well. The only way Clinton was able to turn a deficit into a surplus was because there was a good economy to support it at the time. Now is not the time. IMHO.
Becasue Japan tried this approach and got a lost decade for it. They are continuing this fiscal experiment and are getting more of the same. We have tried this experiment and have gotten more of the same. So yes by all means lets continue the insanity. It's like an alcoholic. If you keep pouring the booze they will keep drinking. The beginning of getting better is painful and rough but you don't get better while Uncle Sammy keeps pouring the booze. You just get deeper and deeper in the hole. Sooner or later you will crash and burn and the damage will be much, much worse when that time comes. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() trinnas - 2012-09-07 9:31 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 9:19 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 3:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story. Why do so many people think that NOW is the time to try paying down the debt?! The economy had tanked and unemployment is over 8%. Yes, I'll say it... Now is the time to stimulate, get the economy back on it's feet and GO INTO MORE DEBT! We need to get people back to work and spending money first. Once things stabilize, then worry about paying it off. For example... Let's say you have a $20,000 credit card bill. (Don't get started on why it's not smart to have a credit card balance of that much. That would be correct for individuals, but NOT for the government.) AND YOU LOSE YOUR JOB. So you have little to no income. Is NOW the time to try and pay off that cc balance with money you don't have? Or would it be better to work as hard as you can to find a job, start making income again, even if it means you cc balance goes up to $30,000 to pay for rent, food and gas? After you get a new job, THEN you start paying it off. The government isn't an individual and it's not designed or meant to make a "profit". $16 trillion in debt is too much. EVERYONE can agree on that. But not having any debt isn't good fiscal policy either (for a government). Now isn't the right time to be having the debt argument. I believe in cutting spending, just not while the unemployment numbers are where they are. The markets reflect this. Talk of government stimulus makes the market go up. Look at the reaction to the market from yesterday's EU CB announcement. Gov't cut talks make the market fall and investors sell, Gov't spend talks make the market rise and investors buy. It's a s simple as that. When the economy improves and the gov't talks of deficit reduction in a GOOD economy, that will spur on markets as well. The only way Clinton was able to turn a deficit into a surplus was because there was a good economy to support it at the time. Now is not the time. IMHO.
Becasue Japan tried this approach and got a lost decade for it. They are continuing this fiscal experiment and are getting more of the same. We have tried this experiment and have gotten more of the same. So yes by all means lets continue the insanity. It's like an alcoholic. If you keep pouring the booze they will keep drinking. The beginning of getting better is painful and rough but you don't get better while Uncle Sammy keeps pouring the booze. You just get deeper and deeper in the hole. Sooner or later you will crash and burn and the damage will be much, much worse when that time comes. I like booze.... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 9:19 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 3:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story. Why do so many people think that NOW is the time to try paying down the debt?! The economy had tanked and unemployment is over 8%. Yes, I'll say it... Now is the time to stimulate, get the economy back on it's feet and GO INTO MORE DEBT! We need to get people back to work and spending money first. Once things stabilize, then worry about paying it off. For example... Let's say you have a $20,000 credit card bill. (Don't get started on why it's not smart to have a credit card balance of that much. That would be correct for individuals, but NOT for the government.) AND YOU LOSE YOUR JOB. So you have little to no income. Is NOW the time to try and pay off that cc balance with money you don't have? Or would it be better to work as hard as you can to find a job, start making income again, even if it means you cc balance goes up to $30,000 to pay for rent, food and gas? After you get a new job, THEN you start paying it off. The government isn't an individual and it's not designed or meant to make a "profit". $16 trillion in debt is too much. EVERYONE can agree on that. But not having any debt isn't good fiscal policy either (for a government). Now isn't the right time to be having the debt argument. I believe in cutting spending, just not while the unemployment numbers are where they are. The markets reflect this. Talk of government stimulus makes the market go up. Look at the reaction to the market from yesterday's EU CB announcement. Gov't cut talks make the market fall and investors sell, Gov't spend talks make the market rise and investors buy. It's a s simple as that. When the economy improves and the gov't talks of deficit reduction in a GOOD economy, that will spur on markets as well. The only way Clinton was able to turn a deficit into a surplus was because there was a good economy to support it at the time. Now is not the time. IMHO. In theory I agree, but to a small extent. A near 50% increase in debt with little to no effect is not a smart move. Each job the stimulus created cost about $135-185k (depends on your source). A lot of the money was also used to give teachers and police and firefighters raises. That's not smart job creation. So I'm not suggesting that we raise taxes and use this to pay off the debt. However you HAVE to control debt. In your CC example above eventually the debt will become so large that even if you do get that job you'll never be able to pay off the credit cards as the interest mounts. Or it'll end up taking yo the rest of your life to pay for it all. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Honestly; yes. I'm better off. There is no war in Iraq. Roads and bridges which sorely needed repairs are getting them. Bus lanes and mass transit are being built. The amount of oil being imported from the middle east is at an all time low. I watched President Obama's inaguration 2 days after I lost my job and was outsourced to China by the largest pharmaceutical company at the time. A skilled scientist with 26 years experience being commoditized management not seeing the value I added via the intellect which went into what I made. By being diligent, I crafted myself a job, albeit with a company NOT in the US. I make less money, but my lifestyle is better as my stresses are lower. These decisions aren't black and white (mening binary, not racial). We're recovering from the abyss. A floor was established which prevented a huge collapse. We need to keep going that direction and NOT risk a free for all money grab by the 1%. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() This is a loaded question that is irrelevant IMO. If you are not better off than you were 4 years ago then do something about it... don't wait for the government to do it for you. If you are better off then according to Obama you didn't build it anyway. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 1:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story.
Because I'm really busy at work and absolutely have nothing better to do, I decided to play with some numbers. Assumptions: 15 Trillion GDP to start, 16 Trillion debt, constant 3.0% GDP growth every year, no exceptions I plugged in the numbers of Ryan's road map to prosperity Table A-II-1 to see how it would project. All numbers are in trillions.
ETA: Debt/GDP %column
Edited by JoshR 2012-09-07 9:25 AM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JoshR - 2012-09-07 10:03 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 1:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story.
Because I'm really busy at work and absolutely have nothing better to do, I decided to play with some numbers. Assumptions: 15 Trillion GDP to start, 16 Trillion debt, constant 3.0% GDP growth every year, no exceptions I plugged in the numbers of Ryan's road map to prosperity Table A-II-1 to see how it would project. All numbers are in trillions. Link to this table? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 8:14 AM JoshR - 2012-09-07 10:03 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 1:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story.
Because I'm really busy at work and absolutely have nothing better to do, I decided to play with some numbers. Assumptions: 15 Trillion GDP to start, 16 Trillion debt, constant 3.0% GDP growth every year, no exceptions I plugged in the numbers of Ryan's road map to prosperity Table A-II-1 to see how it would project. All numbers are in trillions. Link to this table? http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/appendix-ii-table.pdf |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 9:43 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 9:19 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 3:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story. Why do so many people think that NOW is the time to try paying down the debt?! The economy had tanked and unemployment is over 8%. Yes, I'll say it... Now is the time to stimulate, get the economy back on it's feet and GO INTO MORE DEBT! We need to get people back to work and spending money first. Once things stabilize, then worry about paying it off. For example... Let's say you have a $20,000 credit card bill. (Don't get started on why it's not smart to have a credit card balance of that much. That would be correct for individuals, but NOT for the government.) AND YOU LOSE YOUR JOB. So you have little to no income. Is NOW the time to try and pay off that cc balance with money you don't have? Or would it be better to work as hard as you can to find a job, start making income again, even if it means you cc balance goes up to $30,000 to pay for rent, food and gas? After you get a new job, THEN you start paying it off. The government isn't an individual and it's not designed or meant to make a "profit". $16 trillion in debt is too much. EVERYONE can agree on that. But not having any debt isn't good fiscal policy either (for a government). Now isn't the right time to be having the debt argument. I believe in cutting spending, just not while the unemployment numbers are where they are. The markets reflect this. Talk of government stimulus makes the market go up. Look at the reaction to the market from yesterday's EU CB announcement. Gov't cut talks make the market fall and investors sell, Gov't spend talks make the market rise and investors buy. It's a s simple as that. When the economy improves and the gov't talks of deficit reduction in a GOOD economy, that will spur on markets as well. The only way Clinton was able to turn a deficit into a surplus was because there was a good economy to support it at the time. Now is not the time. IMHO. In theory I agree, but to a small extent. A near 50% increase in debt with little to no effect is not a smart move. Each job the stimulus created cost about $135-185k (depends on your source). A lot of the money was also used to give teachers and police and firefighters raises. That's not smart job creation. So I'm not suggesting that we raise taxes and use this to pay off the debt. However you HAVE to control debt. In your CC example above eventually the debt will become so large that even if you do get that job you'll never be able to pay off the credit cards as the interest mounts. Or it'll end up taking yo the rest of your life to pay for it all. Oh I whole-heartedly agree. It's not an "all-or-nothing", "one-way-or-the-other" approach. We should be cutting spending now and slowing the bleeding. When your cc bill is high and you lose your job, you cut back on the frivolous spending and stick to the basics. My belief:
I guess my main point is to at least be open to discussing the options. The "we won't budge a single inch on this." "I signed a pledge that I won't raise any taxes on anyone." This black or white, all or nothing" attitude needs to stop. While everyone can agree that the debt needs to come down, at least have a debate and be pragmatic on how. Make some deals. Give and take. Be a politician!
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 8:14 AM JoshR - 2012-09-07 10:03 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 1:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story.
Because I'm really busy at work and absolutely have nothing better to do, I decided to play with some numbers. Assumptions: 15 Trillion GDP to start, 16 Trillion debt, constant 3.0% GDP growth every year, no exceptions I plugged in the numbers of Ryan's road map to prosperity Table A-II-1 to see how it would project. All numbers are in trillions. Link to this table?
The reason I did that is to further emphasize my point, that there is very little difference and neither candidate is going to help us out. Even with my rosy assumptions, the numbers are horrible. There is also no way that you can project out 70 years. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 10:25 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 9:43 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 9:19 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 3:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story. Why do so many people think that NOW is the time to try paying down the debt?! The economy had tanked and unemployment is over 8%. Yes, I'll say it... Now is the time to stimulate, get the economy back on it's feet and GO INTO MORE DEBT! We need to get people back to work and spending money first. Once things stabilize, then worry about paying it off. For example... Let's say you have a $20,000 credit card bill. (Don't get started on why it's not smart to have a credit card balance of that much. That would be correct for individuals, but NOT for the government.) AND YOU LOSE YOUR JOB. So you have little to no income. Is NOW the time to try and pay off that cc balance with money you don't have? Or would it be better to work as hard as you can to find a job, start making income again, even if it means you cc balance goes up to $30,000 to pay for rent, food and gas? After you get a new job, THEN you start paying it off. The government isn't an individual and it's not designed or meant to make a "profit". $16 trillion in debt is too much. EVERYONE can agree on that. But not having any debt isn't good fiscal policy either (for a government). Now isn't the right time to be having the debt argument. I believe in cutting spending, just not while the unemployment numbers are where they are. The markets reflect this. Talk of government stimulus makes the market go up. Look at the reaction to the market from yesterday's EU CB announcement. Gov't cut talks make the market fall and investors sell, Gov't spend talks make the market rise and investors buy. It's a s simple as that. When the economy improves and the gov't talks of deficit reduction in a GOOD economy, that will spur on markets as well. The only way Clinton was able to turn a deficit into a surplus was because there was a good economy to support it at the time. Now is not the time. IMHO. In theory I agree, but to a small extent. A near 50% increase in debt with little to no effect is not a smart move. Each job the stimulus created cost about $135-185k (depends on your source). A lot of the money was also used to give teachers and police and firefighters raises. That's not smart job creation. So I'm not suggesting that we raise taxes and use this to pay off the debt. However you HAVE to control debt. In your CC example above eventually the debt will become so large that even if you do get that job you'll never be able to pay off the credit cards as the interest mounts. Or it'll end up taking yo the rest of your life to pay for it all. Oh I whole-heartedly agree. It's not an "all-or-nothing", "one-way-or-the-other" approach. We should be cutting spending now and slowing the bleeding. When your cc bill is high and you lose your job, you cut back on the frivolous spending and stick to the basics. My belief:
I guess my main point is to at least be open to discussing the options. The "we won't budge a single inch on this." "I signed a pledge that I won't raise any taxes on anyone." This black or white, all or nothing" attitude needs to stop. While everyone can agree that the debt needs to come down, at least have a debate and be pragmatic on how. Make some deals. Give and take. Be a politician!
I agree with everything you said. Especially education. Those students are taking their Ph.D.'s back to China, India, etc. and building innovative new businesses. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 9:25 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 9:43 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 9:19 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 3:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story. Why do so many people think that NOW is the time to try paying down the debt?! The economy had tanked and unemployment is over 8%. Yes, I'll say it... Now is the time to stimulate, get the economy back on it's feet and GO INTO MORE DEBT! We need to get people back to work and spending money first. Once things stabilize, then worry about paying it off. For example... Let's say you have a $20,000 credit card bill. (Don't get started on why it's not smart to have a credit card balance of that much. That would be correct for individuals, but NOT for the government.) AND YOU LOSE YOUR JOB. So you have little to no income. Is NOW the time to try and pay off that cc balance with money you don't have? Or would it be better to work as hard as you can to find a job, start making income again, even if it means you cc balance goes up to $30,000 to pay for rent, food and gas? After you get a new job, THEN you start paying it off. The government isn't an individual and it's not designed or meant to make a "profit". $16 trillion in debt is too much. EVERYONE can agree on that. But not having any debt isn't good fiscal policy either (for a government). Now isn't the right time to be having the debt argument. I believe in cutting spending, just not while the unemployment numbers are where they are. The markets reflect this. Talk of government stimulus makes the market go up. Look at the reaction to the market from yesterday's EU CB announcement. Gov't cut talks make the market fall and investors sell, Gov't spend talks make the market rise and investors buy. It's a s simple as that. When the economy improves and the gov't talks of deficit reduction in a GOOD economy, that will spur on markets as well. The only way Clinton was able to turn a deficit into a surplus was because there was a good economy to support it at the time. Now is not the time. IMHO. In theory I agree, but to a small extent. A near 50% increase in debt with little to no effect is not a smart move. Each job the stimulus created cost about $135-185k (depends on your source). A lot of the money was also used to give teachers and police and firefighters raises. That's not smart job creation. So I'm not suggesting that we raise taxes and use this to pay off the debt. However you HAVE to control debt. In your CC example above eventually the debt will become so large that even if you do get that job you'll never be able to pay off the credit cards as the interest mounts. Or it'll end up taking yo the rest of your life to pay for it all. Oh I whole-heartedly agree. It's not an "all-or-nothing", "one-way-or-the-other" approach. We should be cutting spending now and slowing the bleeding. When your cc bill is high and you lose your job, you cut back on the frivolous spending and stick to the basics. My belief:
I guess my main point is to at least be open to discussing the options. The "we won't budge a single inch on this." "I signed a pledge that I won't raise any taxes on anyone." This black or white, all or nothing" attitude needs to stop. While everyone can agree that the debt needs to come down, at least have a debate and be pragmatic on how. Make some deals. Give and take. Be a politician!
I agree with most of the above, but would add the following: Overhaul the current tax code to be a fair and equitable distribution of taxation across our entire income-earning population. There is no way that someone can convince me that nearly half of income earners paying no income tax is fair. Also, there is no way that you should get more back on your refund than you paid in. That isn't a tax refund, that is welfare. I have no issue with the Democrats' call for a "fair" tax system. But, I think in this case, there may be different definitions of "fair". |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JoshR - 2012-09-07 11:42 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 8:14 AM JoshR - 2012-09-07 10:03 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 1:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story.
Because I'm really busy at work and absolutely have nothing better to do, I decided to play with some numbers. Assumptions: 15 Trillion GDP to start, 16 Trillion debt, constant 3.0% GDP growth every year, no exceptions I plugged in the numbers of Ryan's road map to prosperity Table A-II-1 to see how it would project. All numbers are in trillions. Link to this table? The reason I did that is to further emphasize my point, that there is very little difference and neither candidate is going to help us out. Even with my rosy assumptions, the numbers are horrible. There is also no way that you can project out 70 years. So what then? Give up and let them run it into the ground? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 10:25 AM [ Oh I whole-heartedly agree. It's not an "all-or-nothing", "one-way-or-the-other" approach. We should be cutting spending now and slowing the bleeding. When your cc bill is high and you lose your job, you cut back on the frivolous spending and stick to the basics. My belief:
See replies above in (non sarcastic) pink. Did anyone else get the impression from Obama;s speech last night he was basically listing things he promised to do 4 years ago and then promising to get them done if reelected? His 2012 speech sounded an awful lot like his 2008 speech. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 12:57 PM Did anyone else get the impression from Obama;s speech last night he was basically listing things he promised to do 4 years ago and then promising to get them done if reelected? His 2012 speech sounded an awful lot like his 2008 speech. We get it, Mr. President. You like to give speeches. You're good at giving speeches. It's results this President isn't so good with. And as he himself said not too long ago, after four years, the economy is on him. And yet, here are once again looking at a horrible jobs report with consumer confidence in the tank. We may be heading back into another recession. And the President has not put forth one new idea. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Yet here we are, likely sending this guy back for another four years of the same. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2012-09-07 12:05 PM TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 12:57 PM ...which sounded an awful lot like every speech he gave between '08 and '12. We get it, Mr. President. You like to give speeches. You're good at giving speeches. It's results this President isn't so good with. And as he himself said not too long ago, after four years, the economy is on him. And yet, here are once again looking at a horrible jobs report with consumer confidence in the tank. We may be heading back into another recession. And the President has not put forth one new idea. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Yet here we are, likely sending this guy back for another four years of the same. Did anyone else get the impression from Obama;s speech last night he was basically listing things he promised to do 4 years ago and then promising to get them done if reelected? His 2012 speech sounded an awful lot like his 2008 speech. You mean like voting for the 2 same parties for decades and expecting them to cut spending? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 11:51 AM JoshR - 2012-09-07 11:42 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 8:14 AM JoshR - 2012-09-07 10:03 AM TriRSquared - 2012-09-06 1:42 PM hrliles - 2012-09-06 3:27 PM When you break it down to individual I venture to say it will be 50/50. The question that counts is are we better off as a country? 2009: $11 trillion in debt 2012: $16 trillion in debt. End of story.
Because I'm really busy at work and absolutely have nothing better to do, I decided to play with some numbers. Assumptions: 15 Trillion GDP to start, 16 Trillion debt, constant 3.0% GDP growth every year, no exceptions I plugged in the numbers of Ryan's road map to prosperity Table A-II-1 to see how it would project. All numbers are in trillions. Link to this table? The reason I did that is to further emphasize my point, that there is very little difference and neither candidate is going to help us out. Even with my rosy assumptions, the numbers are horrible. There is also no way that you can project out 70 years. So what then? Give up and let them run it into the ground? No, vote for anyone else. If there was even a half a threat of a 3rd party, we wouldn't have two idiotic extremes to choose from. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() | ![]() In the ny times today. Workforce paricipation rate for men is 69% . The lowest since 1948.. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jack62 - 2012-09-07 4:55 PM In the ny times today. Workforce paricipation rate for men is 69% . The lowest since 1948.. 4 more years! 4 more years! |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-09-07 1:57 PM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-09-07 10:25 AM [ Oh I whole-heartedly agree. It's not an "all-or-nothing", "one-way-or-the-other" approach. We should be cutting spending now and slowing the bleeding. When your cc bill is high and you lose your job, you cut back on the frivolous spending and stick to the basics. My belief:
See replies above in (non sarcastic) pink. Did anyone else get the impression from Obama;s speech last night he was basically listing things he promised to do 4 years ago and then promising to get them done if reelected? His 2012 speech sounded an awful lot like his 2008 speech. Except for your close, I agree. Another sign that the Mayans were right and indeed the world ends in December. We spend 5.7x on defense per capita than the next nation down. Cut that in half and it's still overkill. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm 4 years older. Dang it! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() I'd say Defense Spending is at least something we can see results from. We could also beat the pants off any country on earth 5.7x faster than the nearest competitor. As I've said before. That'll come in handy when we need to start shooting because we've lost people to borrow from. But in all seriousness, I approve of some cuts. You dont need light speed tech to beat people from the stone age, but you always need equipment that works. You always need better grunts, better training, better intel, better comm equipment. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() pitt83 - 2012-09-07 7:58 PM Except for your close, I agree. Another sign that the Mayans were right and indeed the world ends in December. Did anyone else get the impression from Obama;s speech last night he was basically listing things he promised to do 4 years ago and then promising to get them done if reelected? His 2012 speech sounded an awful lot like his 2008 speech. So you didn't think they sounded an awful a lot alike? Edited by TriRSquared 2012-09-09 7:37 AM |
|