It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget proposal, which carries the title "A New Era of Responsibility," actually calls for a new era of irresponsibility when it comes to adding to the national debt. Obama has made the highly publicized pledge to cut the deficit “in half, ” to $533 billion, by the end of his term, and that pledge is reflected in his new budget proposal. However, this pledge is fraught with numerical chicanery. Before the forecasted annual deficit drops to $533 billion in the Obama budget, it first shoots up to $1.75 trillion for the current fiscal year, which ends this September 30. The baseline that is being used in order to portray a $533 billion deficit as a 50 percent cut is not the $453 billion deficit for the previous fiscal year. Obviously, if last year's record-setting deficit were being used as the baseline, then Obama's projected $533 billion deficit for the end of his first term would mean an 18-percent increase, not a 50 percent decrease. The baseline that is instead being used is the $1 trillion-plus deficit that was being projected for the current fiscal year when Obama became president. Of course, President Obama has since championed spending programs that have ballooned that projection to $1.75 trillion. Not only that, but he supported big-spending programs as a U.S. senator that contributed to the deficit he inherited as president, including last year's $700 billion TARP legislation.
How do you cut the annual deficit to "only" $533 billion while still increasing the national debt by about $1 trillion or more every year? It's being done the same way past administrations have done it: concealing the enormity of the deficits through the "off-budget" theft of “trust funds.” Prime among these are the Social Security trust fund, Medicaid, and federal employee retirement trust funds. Those funds are being filled with "IOUs" that are not factored into the deficit figures. Each of these funds will come due in the coming decades, and taxpayers will pay the price of the liability for them straight out of their tax bills. “Trust fund” theft accounts for $250-400 billion per year in concealed additional debt. President Obama also conceals about $100 billion per year in debt from TARP and “direct loan” accounts for various financial bailouts, all of which remain “off budget.”
Prime among these are the Social Security trust fund, Medicaid, and federal employee retirement trust funds. Those funds are being filled with "IOUs" that are not factored into the deficit figures. Each of these funds will come due in the coming decades, and taxpayers will pay the price of the liability for them straight out of their tax bills. “Trust fund” theft accounts for $250-400 billion per year in concealed additional debt.
If a lot of people don't start getting outraged about all of this and they don't start doing it soon, then it is going to take even longer to fix all the damage that he has done.
I just wish people would wake the hell up and realize that if we don't stop this out of control spending nobody is going to have a future
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
This is starting to look like his intention is to crash every profitable sector of our economy so government can come in and take over.
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008)
Laissez-faire activists support little or no state intervention on economic issues, which implies free markets, minimal taxes, minimal regulations and private ownership of property. They support certain kinds of negative liberty as opposed to positive liberties, such as wealth redistribution, given by the state. However, some laissez-faire proponents, like progressive libertarians prefer negative income tax as a replacement to the existing welfare system, arguing that it is simpler and has fewer of the "perverse incentives" of "government handouts".
Their opposition to wealth distribution is based on the belief that it takes capital from the most productive sectors of the economy and gives it to the less productive sectors, and is enforcing economic egalitarianism, which reduces productivity and the incentive to work. They may further argue that any temporary equality of outcome gained by redistribution would quickly collapse without coercion because people have different levels of motivation and native abilities, and would make different choices based on their differing values. Material inequality, they argue, is a necessary outcome of the freedom to choose one's own actions without imposing on others.
Supporters of laissez-faire favor a state that is neutral between the various competing interest groups that vie for privileges and political power in a country. They are critical of mixed economies on the grounds that it leads to an interest-group politics where each group is seeking to benefit itself at the expense of another and the consumer. They oppose government funding or regulation of schools, hospitals, industry, agriculture, and social welfare programs.
According to them, any government intervention such as regulation, protectionism, creating legal monopolies, competition laws, or taxes, interfere with this judgment being reflected accurately in the price and the maximization of economic utility. Their opposition of competition law and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, stating that they are corrupt and benefits the corporations instead of the consumer.
They tend to believe that minimizing taxes decreases the chance that the government would fund bad programs and prevents citizens from needing government assistance because they have more of their own money
(see "starve the beast").
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I guess some people just go through life like everything is hunky dory, every time you turn on the news it is nothing but Doom and Gloom. I don't really see anything to be optimistic about at this current time in the regularly scheduled program.
Personally I'm ready for it all to collapse because it is going to happen. No fiat money has ever survived it has always failed.
I know how it feels with your old man, my dad is the same way. He can't even read the news anymore because he gets so P.O.'d is what he told me. Makes me feel bad, but I told him this was coming about two years ago.
The only thing that worries me is when are we going to hit the bottom,and nobody knows.
So I really don't see anything to be optimistic about, its like we are stuck with all the negatives and nothing positive.
We can fix it but we have about a year at most before we can fix it.