The Senate has produced and passed a budget. Of course it's mostly all tax increase and does nothing.....repeat nothing....about the deficit ten years down the road.
But there it is. I guess we are all supposed to shut up about a budget now right?
No, you're not supposed to shut up about a budget.
Now, you're supposed to begin screaming that the R's aren't doing their part, that they refuse to accept a top notch budget, that their own budget will murder millions, and that they won't "compromise" by immediately passing anything the Senate produces.
Got your bullhorn ready?
The attitude will be that we asked for a budget, and they gave us what we wanted. The fact that it is worse than no budget doesn't matter. They went home, had a few drinks, and felt great about what they had accomplished.
I really think most high school kids could come up with a better budget than our elected representative.
The deficit in 10 years would be $566 billion. It's progress, not a lot, but still some progress.
Given that the deficit is $845 billion at the minute we've already seen a rapid decline thanks to strong economic growth.
I'd support this budget if it also cut unnecessary military expenditures and reduce them to a more sensible level.
I guess we all have our pet peeves. I'd like to see all unnecessary welfare payments cut.
And all unnecessary pork.
And all unnecessary environmental costs.
And all unnecessary road building.
And...and...I guess all unnecessary costs, period. The key, of course, is what is unnecessary? Bullets or personnel pay for the Army? Cell phones for welfare recipients? Bridge repair all over the country? Border security on the southern (or northern) border? The war on drugs?
We've all got our pet peeves.
Strong economic growth is a false indicator. People are spending more because the dollar is worth less because we have printed so much worthless money. Don't let them fool you regarding a stronger economy.
Job growth and higher wages are the real indicator we should be looking for, not spending.
Here's the joke. CBO's baseline budget, what they project if our elected officials don't do anything but let current law go forward, put the deficit in 2022 at $339 Billion, and a little more than that in 2023.
So this new 'budget', with all of its new 'savings', is actually going to add more debt than if they just let things be.
I totally agree with Old Poolman on his points. People are spending far more money at the gas pump and at the grocery store to get the same amount of gasoline and food they normally consume. Transportation costs on retail items is very high ultimately ending up in the price of everything. It is a form of inflation which is very poorly registered in government analysis. Investment, job growth, and wages will always be a better indicator of any real uptick in economic conditions. What we see at the present are simply conditions forced down the throat of the American consumer because of the poor choices in Washington (i.e. oil drilling restrictions, continued out of control spending, massive debt growth, and heavy over-regulation of the private sector. Never mind the rising cost of healthcare which insurance companies predict can double in the next year...wait until you see that price tag...then you can see the real impact of ObamaCare on this nation. ~WB
Inflation is accounted for in growth furthermore inflation is not up very much, (less than 0.3% since last year) sorry but that is not affecting the validity of economic growth.
Josak, are you saying our dollar is only worth 0.3% less that it was before we started printing money? Of course spending is up because of the huge price increases for gas and groceries to name a couple. That certainly doesn't mean the economy is getting better. I'm glad that you firmly believe the numbers that are being reported, but in the real world, it just isn't shaking out to be true.
When jobs are plentiful and wages go up without mandating an increase in the minimum wage, then I will believe things are getting better. Until then I think we are being fooled into a false sense of security.
With wages basically frozen, and costs steadily increasing, how can you say the economy is improving? I'm having a real problem seeing the logic in that.
No deficit is still growing but the economy is steadily growing too, stock market is strong, profits are way up, economy is growing well (note that these things are affected by oil prices too) oil price rise is included in inflation, it is the major cause of inflation in the U.S. and indeed the world.
The problem we have now is the same problem America always has, the rich are getting richer (very fast) and the poor are staying poor or getting poorer, obviously the solution to which is lower taxes, cut welfare and aid that process
I guess since the trend of "Blame it on Bush" has served its' purpose and is worn out, the new popular trend of blaming the rich has taken its' place.
Lord knows we must blame someone other than this failed administration and for now the Rich are assigned that blame. I wonder who will follow the rich in this ongoing blame game? Will this blame ever trickle all the way down to blaming those who just take from the system and never have or will contribute to the overall good?
I guess we should just ban the rich from American soil once and for all. They can move elsewhere and take their darn jobs with them. The politicians who sell them the special interest tax loopholes will see a decline in their personal incomes, but that is OK as they are all rich and getting richer anyhow.
Perhaps one day we should consider setting a limit on how much money any political candidate can have on their personal wealth statement. It would make sense that if we start electing poor politicians that most if not all of our problems would go away.
Most of the numbers we are fed are carefully manipulated to make us believe things that are not true. We are still spending huge amounts of money we don't have in all the wrong places. More good ole' boy loans and gifts to companies who are doomed to fail anyhow. Sort of a legal form of money laundering and paying back favors.
Yep, rid our country of all rich people and this would be a great place to live, until we all starved to death.
That is just disappointing Poolman, you are better than that.
I never suggested getting rid of rich people, or anything of the sort, I pointed out the statistical FACT that our economy is doing pretty well but all the benefits are going to the rich and none to the poor, you draw whatever conclusions from that as you want but if you want to know why job numbers are not increasing and wages are not increasing there is your FACTUAL answer.
Last year was the best corporate profit margin in American history and one of the worst for middle to low income people in American history.
Now if you want to blame that on Obama you are going to have to do a lot better than you are right now because he supports taxing those corporations to aid the middle and low income demographics.
Try presenting some facts for a change.
Oh and you can keep the conspiracy bull about manipulated numbers, independently reviewed figures backed by budget statements are reliable. Unless of course you have some sort of proof rather than random allegations? But you wont.
Josak, You would dispute any facts that I presented, so it would really be a waste of time.
Consider how many politicians have played a role in supporting tax breaks that only apply to the rich, and you will see more of the problem. Of course the politicians are rich themselves, and getting richer by the day, so they are part of the problem.
I never mentioned Obama in my comment. I was mainly referring to all of our elected representatives who are not doing their job.
More money given to solar companies who will surely fail is not helping any of us.
You don't consider not counting those who have quit looking for work, or those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits into the unemployment numbers as manipulation? I sure as heck do.
Your far to intelligent to believe every number coming out of Washington as the absolute truth. I didn't know that manipulated numbers were part of a conspiracy theory. Heck, the best we can do is estimate how many illegals are living in this country.
If believing all of these numbers makes you feel good, just keep on believing. I sincerely hope you are right.
Oh you noticed that about the numbers too?
Good...I thought it was just me.
I was under the impression the deficit was falling?
In 2009 the US deficit was $1.4 trillion.
In 2010 the US deficit was $1.17 trillion.
In 2011 the US deficit was $1.3 trillion.
In 2012 the US deficit was $1.1 trillion.
In 2013 the US deficit is an estimated $0.845 trillion.
I think we're on the decline (with the exception of 2011) as economic growth returns.
Josak hit the nail on the head though, the problem is the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. If a country moves forward the whole population should move forward together.
"If a country moves forward the whole population should move forward together"
Including the ones that won't help maintain the country? Should they participate in moving forward? If so, who will foot the bill - the ones that do pay net taxes already to keep the place going?
I think it's pretty obvious he did not mean people who choose not to work, but it is beyond obvious that they are not the only ones not moving forward since it is well over 90% of the population.
Unless you think well over 90% of the population won't work.
by logic,commonsense 7 years ago
Read an article on MSN that the projected deficit for this year is 1.5 trillion dollars. Makes bush look like a piker with his measly 3-400 billion dollar deficits.Course there will be those that forget that bush is no longer prez and will find a way to blame him.Obama and the Dems own...
by Ralph Deeds 5 years ago
Paul Krugman:" Back in 2010, self-styled deficit hawks — better described as deficit scolds — took over much of our political discourse. At a time of mass unemployment and record-low borrowing costs, a time when economic theory said we needed more, not less, deficit spending, the scolds...
by Alex Frias 7 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush tax cuts 6 months ago, or even 2 years ago..?Yes Obama has always maintained...
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/25/mor … a-economy/In true 1984 double speak the WH is pointing to the CBO report on the economy as proof their policies are working! Lol! Really? Working to do what? Destroy America?? Can this country REALLY stand any more of Barack O.numb.nuts???
by John 5 years ago
How do you think cutting the federal spending will help the economy?
by Josak 5 years ago
I think it would be great if we could debate the economy not on the basis of "commonly known" or presumed but on the basis of provable facts with sources. I'll start, US deficit for 2009 (last budget made by Bush administration) 1.41 trillion, 2013 budget deficit is 901 Billion, meaning...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|