I'm not calling it a deficit. I'm calling it an "estimated 2009 deficit". I'm not just making up numbers. This comes from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan government agency. The Republicans have spent and promised too much. The Democrats have spent and promised too much. This isn't one party or the other."So this stimulus package is currently $825,000,000,000 ($825 billion) and growing. The estimated 2009 deficit is $1,200,000,000,000 ($1.2 trillion)."
this hasn't even been passed yet, so how can you call it a deficit? :roll:
This isn't about a tariffs. As far as I know, no such thing has been approved. This is just about a "Buy American" clause. Normally, I wouldn't think much about it, except Europe is threatening a trade war. That will only hurt us.I want HIGH tariff on all imported goods, except for some cases and we don't need buy any stuff from China to boost their country, our dollars are weak and need work to strength our currency.
I wish that congress need lift the ban on oil drilling to increase of domestic oil and find other energy in combined then would reduce of foreign oil from other countries, especially greedy OPEC.
The great part about it is all our government has to do is take down the red tape. We, the taxpayer, don't have to pay a cent. It would all be done by private industry, assuming they decide it's profitable and the risks are bearable.i'd like that too, but drilling in our own country is an expensive proposition that is easier said than done. it's not as simple as saying "drill baby, drill."
I agree on both counts. And Monster Cable gets extra points for being especially evil: Blue Jeans Cable Strikes Back - Response to Monster Cable — Reviews and News from AudioholicsBose? When you buy Bose, you pay their marketing budget. Their products aren't really of great quality, ask any audiophiles and they'll tell you it's overrated. It's the same with Monster cables.
Your whole point was that it's not fair to call it a deficit because fiscal 2009 hasn't finished yet. All we can do at this point is estimate it, and that's something we need to do. In order to be accurate and fair, I called it an estimated 2009 deficit. I really don't understand what's wrong with that.referring to this asan "estimted 2009 deficit" is most definitly calling it a deficit.
Remember, it's Congress who holds the power of the purse. Bush and the Democrat-majority Congress have started this fiscal year with huge spending. Now, Obama and the Democrats in Congress are spending even more. Both parties are guilty.this is an issue of one party vs. the other given the fact tha bush creted the largest decific in armican history.
So when Congress sends President Bush a crap bill and he fails to veto it, you absolve Congress of all blame and place it all on President Bush? Is that a standard you intend to apply to President Obama, also?bush also has the pwoer of veto, so congress isn't toblame..
We're talking about this bill because he's pushing it. It has already passed the House and the Senate has yet to vote on it. So to be fair, he still has yet to sign it, and I hope he doesn't. But you seem to be saying we shouldn't even take a critical look at an $825,000,000,000+ bill he's pushing. That somehow I'm being a conservative worthy of scorn for daring to criticize President Obama. Is this a standard that should apply to all presidents? Or just Obama?darkdog,
jow can you say that obama is spnding more? he hasn't e ven been in office for a omthn. amd [people wonder why isay the things i do about conervatives.
This is what giving Obama a chance looks like.it seems that some sconervatives aren't willng to giveobama a chance. how sad.. .
That's a post I made on November 5, 2008. Here's the next post I made later that day.Congratulations to President-elect Obama on his historic election. Though I have misgivings about him on many things, I wish him the best of luck in doing a good job for the country.
It's nothing personal. There's too much at stake for me to make it about what's best for the man rather than what's best for the country.Tell you what- if I see him enact policies that I believe only make things worse, then I'll go ahead and dare to criticize him for it. And if you see a problem in my analysis, you may dare to criticize it. I'll try to be fair to the guy, but no president is beyond criticism.
James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, William Henry Harrison, Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover and is one of worst president than Bush.
Accord to C-SPAN.
http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/performance.asp
no presidnt is worse than george w. bush, no one.
That's an odd way of looking at it. After all, Congress is responsible for writing the bill and voting on it. Without Congress' approval, the President has nothing to veto or sign. If Congress shouldn't be held to account for anything, why bother voting for representatives? Why care who controls the majority?yu'd better beelive that i absolve congress of all blasme. it was bush's fault, plain and simple and yes, if obama does wrong, i will most definitely blme him as well. sorryy, but i'm not the type to place blame on one aprty only. remember, i'm a moderate.
Well if true, then depression will be worse than Hoover years.
How can you come down so hard on Bush for spending so much and then hope Obama spends even more? Is this a matter of principle? Or do you have some other reason for approving of this particular spending?i hope obamasigns the bill. good for hi m if he does.
Things have not gotten anywhere close to the conditions of the Great Depression. The standard of living then was far below where it is now. At its peak, unemployment reached 25% during the Great Depression. Right now, it's around 7%. This isn't to say a Great Depression can't happen in the near future, but let's keep current situation in perspective.we alredy ha ve the highest nationl debt in american histry. tht's bad enough if you ask me..
As the thread opener, I commandeth everyone to behave!