Barack Obama: 'We don't have a spending problem'

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I'm still blue in the face and I'm still sick of that man, not because of the stuff he says, but because of the control he has over his useful idiots that refuse to see the obvious and continue to believe his every word.




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Budget breakdown for 2012

DOD spending $707.5 billion

FBI counter-terrorism $2.9 billion

International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion

Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion

Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion

Homeland Security $46.9 billion

NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion

Veterans pensions $54.6 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion

Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

en.wikipedia.org...

im just gonna go ahead and say that obama is not fit to be president.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I think this is proof that Obama is on crack or something!!
As his employer I demand he submit to a comprehensive drug test IMMEDIATELY!!!!



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SecludedGamer
Budget breakdown for 2012

DOD spending $707.5 billion

FBI counter-terrorism $2.9 billion

International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion

Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion

Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion

Homeland Security $46.9 billion

NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion

Veterans pensions $54.6 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion

Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

en.wikipedia.org...

im just gonna go ahead and say that obama is not fit to be president.


Wow, that is an incredible amount on security/defence.

It is amazing that veterans cost so much. I had no idea.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
We don't have a spending problem?

HE certainly does, him and his family cost the US tax payers untold millions every little trip.

The world is in depression, ITS NOT TIME TO PLAY GOLF OR TOP UP THE TAN, BIG JOB MEANS BIG WORK.

The man and his wife, sorry especially the wife and squandering money like its something they have never had and then telling you tough times are ahead..FOR YOU, not him or her.

Disgusting..

Reminds me of our snotty Posh boys in the UK, Cameron and Osbourne (Clegg is just a puppet), they attack the spending of the poor while inflating their own pay and privileges.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by neo96
 


I have no intention of debunking your same BS on every thread. One thing to bring light to ignorance, but you can't educate willful ignorance.

The numbers you qouted? I drilled down on them with links the last time you posted them.

As far as "entitlements"...ponder the meaning of that word. It wasn't always said as if you were spitting at the same time. The reason that they are called "Entitle"ments is because they are FUNDED....deposits by folks entitled to withdrawl those same funds.



That is a fallacy.

Social Security was never set up as a "trust fund" that people paid into and received a profit on their forced savings.



5 Huge Myths About Social Security



Myth No. 1: Social Security is going bankrupt

....Social Security isn't going bankrupt, nor is bankruptcy really possible as the system is currently set up.....

....In short, to say Social Security is going bankrupt, you have to ignore its revenues. But by such a weird standard -- ignoring revenues and seeing how long it would take expenses to drive tangible net assets to zero -- the average member of the Dow would go "bankrupt" in just under three months. (Fascinating bonus trivia: At nine months, Microsoft would survive the longest, while United Technologies wouldn't last two hours, and eight Dow blue chips – DuPont, Boeing, IBM, Pfizer, Hewlett-Packard, Procter & Gamble, AT&T, and Verizon -- would already be bankrupt. Again, that's because ignoring revenues doesn't make sense.)....

Myth No. 2: Meeting Social Security's future shortfall is really hard

We only need to come up with about 0.9% of GDP in order to make Social Security's revenues match up with its expenses for the next 75 years.

To put that into perspective, 0.9% is close to
the cost of unemployment insurance,
the high-end Bush tax cuts,
or one-fifth of the Defense budget. That's not insignificant, but it's hardly apocalyptic.

Myth No. 4: Social Security adds to the deficit

Social Security can't add to the deficit, because it has its own funding source (Social Security payroll taxes) and isn't allowed to spend any money it doesn't have. Much of the confusion comes from the fact that under federal accounting practices Social Security is represented in the consolidated federal budget, as well as from the fact that Social Security's trust fund, like many insurance funds, invests in Treasury bonds. (Bonds are debt investments.)


www.fool.com...

Before disputing any of the above I would ask you go to the link provided and read the explanations in thier entirety. I have only excerpted portions here.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SecludedGamer
Budget breakdown for 2012

DOD spending $707.5 billion

FBI counter-terrorism $2.9 billion

International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion

Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion

Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion

Homeland Security $46.9 billion

NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion

Veterans pensions $54.6 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion

Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

en.wikipedia.org...

im just gonna go ahead and say that obama is not fit to be president.


Wow...Thanks for that...from YOUR link...President Obama has dramtically reversed the runaway spending of the Last Republican President in every single category of Military spending..

The only factor that continues to drive the Military expense is INTEREST on the debt incurred by Pres. GW Bush and the Republicans Neo-Con wars and invasions!

Same Wiki page you used...Explaining your numbers...See the crazy rise under the GOP/Pres. BUSH and the dramtic FALL of all the spending under OBAMA? Except the interest on the debt from those UNFUNDED wars and OCCUPATIONS that the last GOP President got us into???




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Social Security has constantly been regarded by the ignorant as an entitlement. It has been taken (real dollars) out of our paychecks since our very first wages were ever paid as SS & SSDI. Every paycheck we paid this tax, our entire working life.
Since there are so many that would do away with Social security and default on paying it back to those who earned it, I say it's about time to kick those individuals to the curb.
And since you think you can just abandon those who have earned Social Security, and do away with it, I say you are flat out robbing us, stealing and causing calamity for those who gave everything to you and supported you all of your childhood and adolescent life. So with that betrayal, pi_ _ on you, we demand it. And we intend to get it.
edit on 8-1-2013 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Barack.......you......



......are retarded....a special kind of stupid.....

a dumb ass.......
edit on 8-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Inconceivable!!

No seriously though, you nailed it. If BO doens't think we have a spending problem, then I guess politicians actually do something in Washington, Partisanship isn't real, and Ron Paul doesn't exist.

/sarcasm



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
He is right, although he worded it incorrectly. He should have said we don't have a problem spending.

Just more of his double talk and lies. And whoever is in charge should think about hiring someone a bit more intelligent to type his words I to that thing...or whomever is talking into his earpiece.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5 One thing to bring light to ignorance, but you can't educate willful ignorance.


Indeed...


Originally posted by Indigo5 As far as "entitlements"...ponder the meaning of that word. It wasn't always said as if you were spitting at the same time. The reason that they are called "Entitle"ments is because they are FUNDED....deposits by folks entitled to withdrawl those same funds.



Definition of ENTITLEMENT

1: a: the state or condition of being entitled : right b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also: funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

www.merriam-webster.com...



I am CERTAIN that there is nothing in the word entitlement that implies that it is funded to be considered an entitlement.

It’s one thing to disagree, another entirely to make up definitions of words to suit your world view.


Originally posted by Indigo5
The WARS your idealogical bretheren celebrate were UNFUNDED...entitlements?


There is a portion of the government budget for contingency operations and wars (I am using war as it is used today - I am not implying that we are in a State of declared war as that has not happened since 1945.)

While I agree the expenditures far exceed the funds one must consider that we also went more years without war than with one.


Originally posted by Indigo5
FUNDED as long as the Gov. doesn't spend those folks deposits on adventures overseere as in search of oil for the GOP masters.


Both sides have been raiding the trust funds for SS for quite some time - it is not a phenomena limited to Elephants or Donkeys. They are all willfully using money that should have been protected to advance their respective agendas and to in effect "buy" their way into power with other people's money.

Democrats are hardly altruistic good guys who want nothing but the best for America - neither are the Republicans. Both are little more than thugs in suits shaking everyone down for a dollar keeping seventy cents for themselves and tossing the other thrity to thier base in exchange for continued "protection".

If you and I did that we'd be in jail.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I am still trying to figure out why be bailed out the banks



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Remember the good old days when the concept of a Trillion dollar bill was comedy?
Someone please contact Monty Burns



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by SecludedGamer
Budget breakdown for 2012

DOD spending $707.5 billion

FBI counter-terrorism $2.9 billion

International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion

Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion

Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion

Homeland Security $46.9 billion

NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion

Veterans pensions $54.6 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion

Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

en.wikipedia.org...

im just gonna go ahead and say that obama is not fit to be president.


Wow...Thanks for that...from YOUR link...President Obama has dramtically reversed the runaway spending of the Last Republican President in every single category of Military spending..

The only factor that continues to drive the Military expense is INTEREST on the debt incurred by Pres. GW Bush and the Republicans Neo-Con wars and invasions!

Same Wiki page you used...Explaining your numbers...See the crazy rise under the GOP/Pres. BUSH and the dramtic FALL of all the spending under OBAMA? Except the interest on the debt from those UNFUNDED wars and OCCUPATIONS that the last GOP President got us into???



Interesting.
Your chart shows how the deficit and spending continues to rise even after Obama takes office.
Most interesting is how the "Reduction" is only shown in future years.
You expect us to believe that Obama is going to magically make the spending decline?
I have a bridge i will sell you if youre interested.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Well that article is enough for me to never take The Motley Fool seriously again. Particularly the part about how the "social security surplus" is "invested". I'd not take issue with it if it didn't imply that the bonds that the Soc Sec Admin holds were the same as bonds that trade in worldwide bond markets, they are most certainly not. They are "special" non-marketable bonds. The .gov took the surplus, spent it, and gave the SSA I owe U's. When the SSA needs that money, they have to go to the Treasury to redeem it. The Treasury will either have to pay that IOU with cash on hand or issue real bonds at the current at the time rates. It's a sloppy article, and that's just the easiest to figure hole I see in it.

That being said, of all the entitlements, Social Security old age benefit is the easiest to fix. The first thing to do is to axe the two year old tax cut which happened last week. Next would be to tax all wages instead of just the first $105K-ish in income as is done currently. Then, if needed, you could raise the retirement age a few years and then if absolutely necessary some type of means test might be appropriate.

Other entitlements are much more tricky.

Social Security Disability is a whole other beast. I personally think it is filled with fraud, and at most should equal 40hrs a week at national minimum wage.

We should really be calling the recently renewed extended unemployment benefit what it really is--WELFARE. I'm perfectly fine with unemployment insurance and the standard 26 weeks eligibility. I'm against but understand temporary extensions of maybe up to another 3 months to half a year in tough economic times but not for the damn near four years you've had people drawing "funemployment" for up to two years.

Food stamps are as much of a handout to Grocery stores and food producers as they are to the people who use them. Food stamps inoculate groceries and producers from market forces that should cause prices to fall in recessions, and hurts those gainfully employed who are seeing inflation eat away at their purchasing power while their income falls or at best remains stable.

I find welfare morally repugnant as it destroys ones motivation to better themselves.

Finally we get to the biggest spending items of all and what will truly kill us financially if things aren't changed soon. Medicare and Medicaid are the two items in the budget that are going to sink us financially. I'm not saying that those programs should go away, but they are not sustainable at all. US medical spending has been growing at a roughly 8-9% rate since 1980. At that growth rate the amount of money spent is doubling around every 8 or so years. All US tax receipts including Social Security taxes in 2011 were 2.3 Trillion roughly. Medicare and Medicaid expenses in 2011 were 835 Billion at the current pace of growth in 2019 Medicare and Medicaid will cost 1.67 Trillion by themselves. The economy is only growing around a 2% pace, and that's if you believe the numbers fed us by the .gov and their shills in the MSM. So at some time in the next 16 years, unless drastic changes are made, Medicare and Medicaid will take every penny of revenue that the .gov takes in.

One of the reasons politicians ALWAYS mention Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid in the same breath is that they want the public to think that they are linked together. Social Security is pretty much fixable, Medicare/Medicaid aren't without major systemic changes that are sure to piss off big interest groups that give politicians on both sides of the aisle major money.

First you have to remove all anti-trust exemptions that the medical industry enjoys. Next, first sale doctrine must be honored on drugs and medical devices like every other consumer good. Re-importation bans must end so that the US consumer isn't paying the R&D cost for the rest of the world like they are now. Then, pricing disparity must end, patients should be billed the same no matter the method of payment be it insurance, medicare, or cash. EMTALA should be repealed and the right to drop into an ER run up a couple hundred thousand of expenses and never pay a dime should end. The only thing that a medical provider should have to do for someone who cannot pay is transport to either a charity hospital or charity ward for treatment. If you look at what an uncomplicated birth cost in the late sixties to include a 3 or so day stay in the hospital and applied only normal inflation and price increases, the same birth today would cost somewhere between $1200 and $2000.

I know the above is sacrilege to both the left and right, I'm fine with that. But if the right can't get behind some real market reforms in the healthcare industry, I'm perfectly fine with nationalizing the healthcare system under the "provide for the common good clause" of the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Oh we don't have a spending problem? You just spent millions of tax payers dollars on a holiday vaction. You're right, maybe WE don't have a spending problem... maybe YOU have a spending problem.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Riiiiiight. SS, a program which has been in the black since its inception, is an entitlement. Okaaaaay.

You guys crack me up sometimes. Goebells is proud of you again, Neo.
Great job!

SS is a program which we pay into.

Perhaps fighting a war we NEVER PAID FOR, at the exact same time we cut taxes for everyone is what ERASED CLINTON'S SURPLUS AND CREATED OUR CURRENT DEFICIT.

Nah, couldn't be. It must always be teachers, old people, cripples and Obama phones.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptAmerika

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by SecludedGamer
Budget breakdown for 2012

DOD spending $707.5 billion

FBI counter-terrorism $2.9 billion

International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion

Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion

Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion

Homeland Security $46.9 billion

NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion

Veterans pensions $54.6 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion

Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

en.wikipedia.org...

im just gonna go ahead and say that obama is not fit to be president.


Wow...Thanks for that...from YOUR link...President Obama has dramtically reversed the runaway spending of the Last Republican President in every single category of Military spending..

The only factor that continues to drive the Military expense is INTEREST on the debt incurred by Pres. GW Bush and the Republicans Neo-Con wars and invasions!

Same Wiki page you used...Explaining your numbers...See the crazy rise under the GOP/Pres. BUSH and the dramtic FALL of all the spending under OBAMA? Except the interest on the debt from those UNFUNDED wars and OCCUPATIONS that the last GOP President got us into???



Interesting.
Your chart shows how the deficit and spending continues to rise even after Obama takes office.
Most interesting is how the "Reduction" is only shown in future years.
You expect us to believe that Obama is going to magically make the spending decline?
I have a bridge i will sell you if youre interested.


Your gang said the EXACT same thing during Clinton.






top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join