Obama warns - August 3rd - Possibly no social security checks will be paid.

For many who are wondering and want more specifics....here is a May 2011 report on the financial condition of social security.

www.ssa.gov...

reply to post by poet1b


i still hold that my numbers are accurate. 1.2+1.8=3 3/2=1.5 (past two years average out to my claim)

now. for the current deficit in 2011. well, it goes without saying that once you run out of money, you can't spend anymore. the government has run out and hit the debt ceiling. throughout this year, the deficit has been higher that it was last year in the same months.

The US budget deficit shot up 15.7 percent in the first six months of fiscal 2011, the Treasury Department said Wednesday

and the real kicker:

The Treasury reported a deficit of $829 billion for the October-March period, compared with $717 billion a year earlier

hotair.com...

by march, the deficit we have was higher this year than it was last year by 112 billion.

the estimated budget you gave must have been the CURRENT estimate for how much we've spent, not how much we're going to spend.

now, for PROJECTED deficits this year:

The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday estimated the U.S. budget deficit will be $1.48 trillion Read more: www.foxbusiness.com...

The federal budget deficit is on track to top $1 trillion for the third straight year. The government said the deficit in the first nine months of the budget year was $971 billion. The gap will probably top last year’s $1.29 trillion

reddogreport.com...

and indeed, if we spend what we've averaged per month up until now, we'll be at 1.3 trillion.

at the current spending rate, factoring in the cuts obama wants to impliment (and by the way, that 4 trillion in cuts is actually 3 trillion in cuts and 1 trillion from increased taxes, so when you said "taxes will make up the rest", taxes had already been factored in) we will be between 22 and 26 trillion in debt after 10 years.

the average for the last three years from your numbers comes out to 1.36 trillion, but you factored everything off of the current deficit before the year is even over. using numbers to suit your own needs much? 22 trillion results from a .8 deficit (including obama's cuts, this is conservative considering the past three years) 26 trillion is a bit liberal resulting from a 1.1 trillion deficit also including obama's cuts.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Yeah, basically, you are insisting that 2+2 =7, straight up nonsense, and the source you provided, hotair, is nothing but hot air.

You are being duped.

reply to post by poet1b


how does it make no sense when i used the numbers you provided?

also i showed that the deficit this year has been larger month to month than last year, yet you insisted that the deficit this year is lower.

yes. sources are biased, read around it. can you show that the data i gave is inaccurate?

and your last line of defense is a quick quip that i'm "being duped", when you haven't provided contrary evidence?

reply to post by Ozscot


My mind boggles . All they have to do is put more diggits in accounts . its not like any of this is real .Just digits that seem to have the power to make people miseral or happy if you have lots of digits .

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Here are your numbers. For some reason you think averaging the numbers in this manner applies in this situation, it does not.

still hold that my numbers are accurate. 1.2+1.8=3 3/2=1.5 (past two years average out to my claim)

Here are the numbers from the government website I posted.

The last GW admin budget deficit 2009 (budget passed in 2008) est is $1.84T

The first Obama admin budget deficit 2010 (budget passed in 2009) est is $1.26T

The Obama admin budget deficit 2011 (budget passed in 2010) est is $0.93T

So a $0.4T reduction in the fed budget would put us at a annual deficit of about $.53T

Here is how math works.

1.84-1.26= .58T reduction in deficit from 2009 to 2010. That is over half a trillion in reduction.

Jun was down from last year, so who knows what the final deficit for 2011 will be, but no where near 1.84 T, unless something changes drastically.

A .4T budget cut would still almost cut the deficit in half. Winding down the war in Afghanistan should also cut some bills.

You expect things to get fixed immediately.

Yes, the sources you use does show that you are being duped.

reply to post by poet1b


lets go from what we've seen of obama. 1.2 trillion in 2010, and if spending stays the same for the next few months as it has all year, 1.3 trillion for 2011. subtract 400 billion and you get .8 trillion deficit at the lowest, which results in a 22 trillion debt in ten years. exactly what i said.

and logically speaking, the only reason the deficit isn't much higher this year is because they are literally all out of money. it was well above the previous years spending until it hit the plaster wall that is the debt ceiling.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Yeah, lets look at Obama's record. He cut the deficit by a third his first years budget, after GW and the repubs ran the budget through the roof.

What happens this year is still up for grabs, but having inherited an economic tailspin, the fact that things haven't gotten worse, but actually gotten better, is a considerable accomplishment.

That, while taking on the gulf oil spill crisis, created by GWs deregulation policies.

Obama did pretty good his first year his policies began to come into effect.

And we are now winding down the occupation of Afghanistan.

We have yet to hit the debt ceiling, that happens Aug 3rd, haven't you been paying attention.

Obama's biggest mistake was to ever compromise with the republicans. He should have played hard ball from the beginning.

reply to post by poet1b


someone's drinking all the koolaid. do you honestly not see how being so blinded by your party is a bad thing?

all the things you posted are so ingrained with what obama has said, you've forgotten to look at what he's actually done.

not to mention to you ignored my reply and went wildly off topic.

obama's deficits have been very consistant, the second being higher until the government ran out of money.

can you think of a scenario where a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea? i can't. so why does obama oppose it?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by poet1b

 

i'm sorry, but your numbers are off. www.usdebtclock.org... reports the current deficit at 1.394 TRILLION as of the second i post this.

the combined worth of every american billionare equals 1.3 trillion. we can't tax our way out of this one, not in this economy. taxes DO need to be raised to corporations and those in the higher tax bracket, but it isn't an end-all solution by a long shot. www.federalbudget.com... raising taxes too high will further stall the economy, especially on the middle class.

obama's own estimation for the deficit in 2011 was 2 trillion.

the numbers i gave are within reasonable accuracy. what i surmised is also true, "lowering the deficit" won't work. only completely eradicating it right now will save the country. anything less means we continue on the same path.

Great Federal Budget link!

Now we can see where all the money is being - wasted - by Obama.
Step 1: Reduce the size of the U.S. Government.

OOPS! Obama will refuse to ever do that. He is in love with his - sacred cows -.

--------------
Lets just rob the Millionaires & Billionaires (the capitalists) and just grow the government!

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


You are the one who can't escape from a one side view. I can think of several things to criticize about Obama, and do so often, while you remain firmly entrenched in the hate Obama camp.

You blame Obama, when almost our entire national debt has been created by right wing, free market preaching politicians like Reagan, and the two Bush admins, stocked with extremists.

I proved you wrong, Obama's first budget cut deficit spending by a third, that you ignore this fact proves how lost you are. You can't tell up from down.

Yeah, I can think of a bad scenario of a balanced budget amendment, one where government is shrunk down to the size where corporations can drown it in the bath water like a baby, and then throw it out with the bath water and our liberties.

Do you want to be ruled by corporations?

reply to post by Eurisko2012


So your answer is to eliminate representative government, and let corporations run our country.

That is the kind of thinking the people who fought on the side of the king in the revolutionary war embraced.

Myself, I choose not to be a slave, and to support a government where I still have a say.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

So your answer is to eliminate representative government, and let corporations run our country.

That is the kind of thinking the people who fought on the side of the king in the revolutionary war embraced.

Myself, I choose not to be a slave, and to support a government where I still have a say.

My answer is free market capitalism.
----------
If you insist on socialism, then move to Canada.
They have free health care up there.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

You are the one who can't escape from a one side view. I can think of several things to criticize about Obama, and do so often, while you remain firmly entrenched in the hate Obama camp.

You blame Obama, when almost our entire national debt has been created by right wing, free market preaching politicians like Reagan, and the two Bush admins, stocked with extremists.

I proved you wrong, Obama's first budget cut deficit spending by a third, that you ignore this fact proves how lost you are. You can't tell up from down.

Yeah, I can think of a bad scenario of a balanced budget amendment, one where government is shrunk down to the size where corporations can drown it in the bath water like a baby, and then throw it out with the bath water and our liberties.

Do you want to be ruled by corporations?

edit on 19-7-2011 by poet1b because: typo

and if you've read any of my posts, you would see that i dislike republicans as equally. i've already said i don't blame obama solely, but he hasn't helped things.

you showed that bush had a higher deficit in his last year. followed by obama with a 1.2 trillionish, and now obama is working on 1.3 trillion (it would be higher, but he ran out of money). all factored in to the numbers i showed. so you proved me wrong on what, exactly?

corporations can be managed by laws. (btw, it was the democrats that upheld the loophole G.E. used to get out of taxes last year. a "contribution of 30 million dollars" to one of the democrat's school district had nothing to do with it ) what laws can't manage is the collapse of our economy because we have too much debt from reckless spending.

asking the government to be responsible with its spending our money in no way lets corporations take over.

take out as many large bank loans as you can and spend all of your money. then come back and tell me spending more than you make is a good idea.

What happens when a big and powerful nation defaults?

We only need to turn to history for answers.

Take the Treaty of Versailles as a case study, for its high impact and hugh later ramifications.

After the great war of WW1, Germany was declared the instigator of the war, lost it and was forced to pay the allied nations as compensation to the tune of $132 billion marks. Already in a depression after the war, a military detoothed, an aristocracy humbled, Germans could not pay up.

France sent her soldiers and made a grab for the Ruhr industrial region. Germans retailiated by striking and sabotaging the plants there. Without the factories working, germany made more economic loss, and as a result, the mark devalued horrendously, till it took a trillion mark just to purchase a loaf bread. Savings were wiped out. The people suffered.

Germany could have paid that amount over a period of 59 years, with rational spending cuts such as military budgets, but more importantly - the aristocrats, military organisations and coporations SHOULD HAVE helped. But they didn't. Instead, the elites paid to a number of right wing organisations to strive discontent through nationalism amongst the masses.

And amongst one of them, a fiery comet arised - Hitler, whom seized power, reclaimed back the Ruhr, stopped payments, humbled and robbed the elites anyway and generally went on a murderous spree.

Best the rich elites and right wingers know what the hell they are doing, or from the suffering soon to come, another Hilter will arise. We are doom to repeat history if we fail to learn them.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


So free market capitalism replacing representative government is different than communism how?

You want to be a slave, go to the third world country of your choice. They are also ruled by the extremely rich.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


You have spent the last couple of pages blaming Obama for the problems created by GW, that is completely partisan. You might want to reassess your position. Sure, some democrats are susceptible to bribes, but the repubs are completely in the wallets of big corporations.

As far as the foolish balance budget amendment, you might want to look at fed gov borrowing in WW II. A balanced budget amendment would mean that we would now be ruled by the Japanese and the Germans, how is that for a reason not to support a balanced budget amendment.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

You have spent the last couple of pages blaming Obama for the problems created by GW, that is completely partisan. You might want to reassess your position. Sure, some democrats are susceptible to bribes, but the repubs are completely in the wallets of big corporations.

As far as the foolish balance budget amendment, you might want to look at fed gov borrowing in WW II. A balanced budget amendment would mean that we would now be ruled by the Japanese and the Germans, how is that for a reason not to support a balanced budget amendment.

quote me where i said it was obama's fault the debt is what it is.

as i've said a billion times, i know republicans are corrupt, and so are democrats. all of them are. so using the line "republicans are in the pockets of big corporations" only demonstrates that you're partisan and think insulting the opposite side makes you better. they're both corrupt.

we're not in a world war, and there is no reason for us to spend above our means. doing so sets us up for collapse. if something of that magnitude comes along, i don't think there would be many americans who would oppose borrowing money until it was over. afterwards we could bring the boys home, cut spending, and pay the debt off. then we'd be back at zero.

do you honestly think its better to start off a world war already in debt, or at zero?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


our current situation is completely different. there was no right or wrong side in ww1. american's acted unfairly quite a few times by supplying britain aid while remaining "neutral".

the allies forced germany to take the blame for the whole war, and demanded huge payments. this caused a lot of anger in germany, and later paved the way for a nationalist to rise up.

hitler took the stage, and the allies are indirectly to blame for ww2.

we, however, have a government that spends us into debt. maybe armed conflict will follow, but following the german's model, it will be against the cause of our problems. the current government.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


How you blame it all on Obama.

all the things you posted are so ingrained with what obama has said, you've forgotten to look at what he's actually done.

obama's deficits have been very consistant, the second being higher until the government ran out of money.

lets go from what we've seen of obama.

the deficit will be around 26 trillion in a decade according to obama's plan.

i agree. two parts hateraid, three parts party politics, combine in a large mixing bowl (trust me, you need a big one), and apply liberally (haha, pun intended! =P)

frankly, i'm surprised someone could be so indoctrinated into their "party". at the end of the day, you support the party, and pay for the party, but you're not invited.

obama's "spending cuts" are equivalent to foregoing the sprinkles on an ice cream cone.

i love how you added that one in there. like saying "zing!" after a particularly punctual joke.
what do you think will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised? if its raised at all, i don't think it will be through normal means anymore. and no matter what happens, i guarantee you he will have his party.

And of course there is your link to the right wing nut job website, hotair.com...

Oh, but you don't have any biases.

When you acknowledge that almost all of our nations debt was created under republican presidents, and and start talking about the failure of republican politicians in creating this mess, then you might have some credibility as non-partisan, but only a right wing extremist reads websites like hotair. You do your best at keeping your extremist ideology hidden, but it still leaks out for all to see.

Oh, and you make all these claims without ever providing any links or evidence to back up said claims, except for uncredible right wing websites.