Bluegrassrivals

In case anybody thought that the annual federal budget deficit is going to improve any time soon. Whether he is deliberately trying to destroy our economy and way of life or not, Obama is certainly doing a great job of doing just that.

[INDENT]

Quote:CBO: Obama budget underestimates deficits by $2.3 trillion over upcoming decade

WASHINGTON — A new assessment of President Barack Obama’s budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.

The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama’s February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years — an average of almost $1 trillion a year.

Obama’s budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.

The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.

But the agency also rejects the administration’s claims of more than $300 billion of that savings — to pay for preventing a cut in Medicare payments to doctors — because it doesn’t specify where it would come from. Likewise, CBO fails to credit the White House with an additional $328 billion that would come from unspecified “bipartisan financing” to pay for transportation infrastructure projects such as high speed rail lines and road and bridge construction.

[/INDENT]

Hoot Gibson Wrote:In case anybody thought that the annual federal budget deficit is going to improve any time soon. Whether he is deliberately trying to destroy our economy and way of life or not, Obama is certainly doing a great job of doing just that.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

I could also make the same case for the President right before him. In fact, I could make for many Presidents with an R or D beside their name.

tvtimeout Wrote:I could also make the same case for the President right before him. In fact, I could make for many Presidents with an R or D beside their name.

Not by using facts. When George W Bush left office the budget deficit was 500 billion. The CBO says the budget will run short of the mark by 10 Trillion over the next decade give or take. Ever heard of the book written by Darrell Huff titled "HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS"?

The present administration has it down to science. The deficits we used to run could be reasonably paid for with some belt tightening. Those we run now will bankrupt us. And the justification for the madness is embodied in the rationale that other people did it too. Sounds like words from a fight with the wife.

TheRealThing Wrote:Not by using facts. When George W Bush left office the budget deficit was 500 billion. The CBO says the budget will run short of the mark by 10 Trillion over the next decade give or take. Ever heard of the book written by Darrell Huff titled "HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS"?

The present administration has it down to science. The deficits we used to run could be reasonably paid for with some belt tightening. Those we run now will bankrupt us. And the justification for the madness is embodied in the rationale that other people did it too. Sounds like words from a fight with the wife.

Have you ever read Glenn Beck's book Broke I read it over the weekend. An interesting read and his take on history.

Before G.W. Bush took President, didn't we have a surplus? Did you count that along with the deficit? I am just asking?

Somehow though it will ultimately be someone else's fault, because the R's can never do wrong....

tvtimeout Wrote:I could also make the same case for the President right before him. In fact, I could make for many Presidents with an R or D beside their name.

You could try to make that case but before you do realize this. The budget deficit last month was larger than the budget deficit for all of 2007. I know that you want to believe that there is no difference in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and that there is no difference between Obama and Bush but you are dead wrong.

If you look at the spending numbers you cannot make your case. Bush was a big spender for a Republican but he was a minor leaguer in that regard compared to Obama.

tvtimeout Wrote:Have you ever read Glenn Beck's book Broke I read it over the weekend. An interesting read and his take on history.

Before G.W. Bush took President, didn't we have a surplus? Did you count that along with the deficit? I am just asking?

Somehow though it will ultimately be someone else's fault, because the R's can never do wrong....

You are sounding like a broken record. Try as you might, you cannot absolve yourself of the guilt of supporting the national Democratic Party in the past. Bill Clinton deserves credit for the brief balanced budget agreement that he reached with House Republicans. However, those House Republicans also deserve some credit for keeping the pressure on Clinton.

If you look at spending as a function of the party controlling the House, you will see that spending accelerates when Democrats snatch control of the nation's purse strings. The past two years, with Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House is a recipe for disaster and the CBO's report bears out that fact.

As for Beck, I can only take him in small doses and I prefer getting my economics lessons from economists whom I trust. Beck is a smart guy but at the end of the day, he is an entertainer. My favorite talk show host is Neal Boortz, who is a libertarian and one of the chief advocate of the Fair Tax proposal.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:You are sounding like a broken record. Try as you might, you cannot absolve yourself of the guilt of supporting the national Democratic Party in the past. Bill Clinton deserves credit for the brief balanced budget agreement that he reached with House Republicans. However, those House Republicans also deserve some credit for keeping the pressure on Clinton.

If you look at spending as a function of the party controlling the House, you will see that spending accelerates when Democrats snatch control of the nation's purse strings. The past two years, with Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House is a recipe for disaster and the CBO's report bears out that fact.

As for Beck, I can only take him in small doses and I prefer getting my economics lessons from economists whom I trust. Beck is a smart guy but at the end of the day, he is an entertainer. My favorite talk show host is Neal Boortz, who is a libertarian and one of the chief advocate of the Fair Tax proposal.

I have never voted for a democrat, but I have voted for a republican canadiate, which I did regret. I also voted for Bob Barr! I have see both parties holding back personal liberty.

Again, didn't someone once say two wrongs don't make a right, refering to your comment on 2007.

The point is if we had a libertarian in office, or close to it AKA Ron Paul, would not see a deficit.

I would also recommend watching Stossel as well as Lou Dobbs. I also recommend watch BTV or bloomberg's Television. Also, anytime Warren Buffet speaks I listen as well Bill Gates. Both were on this morning, very interesting thoughts!

I would also be careful of who you listen to, perspective is always recommended at least it is to me.

tvtimeout Wrote:I have never voted for a democrat, but I have voted for a republican canadiate, which I did regret. I also voted for Bob Barr! I have see both parties holding back personal liberty.

Again, didn't someone once say two wrongs don't make a right, refering to your comment on 2007.

The point is if we had a libertarian in office, or close to it AKA Ron Paul, would not see a deficit.

I would also recommend watching Stossel as well as Lou Dobbs. I also recommend watch BTV or bloomberg's Television. Also, anytime Warren Buffet speaks I listen as well Bill Gates. Both were on this morning, very interesting thoughts!

I would also be careful of who you listen to, perspective is always recommended at least it is to me.

Neither do 12 wrongs make a right. February's budget deficit was more than the deficit that Bush accumulated in a period of 1/12 as long. That is the perspective that you need to see. Relatively small budget deficits under Bush, monster-sized, record-shattering budget deficits under Obama. That is the big picture and the big difference between having the entire federal government under the control of Democrats versus having a counterweight in the White House.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Bill Clinton deserves credit for the brief balanced budget agreement that he reached with House Republicans. However, those House Republicans also deserve some credit for keeping the pressure on Clinton.

Are these fiscally conservative House Republicans the same ones that blew money like drunken sailors for the next 8 years?

BillyB Wrote:Are these fiscally conservative House Republicans the same ones that blew money like drunken sailors for the next 8 years?

Do you read or watch the news, BillyB? Do you have any clue as to what the deficits were during the previous periods that Republicans controlled the House (or the White House) versus what happened under Pelosi in the House and Obama in the White House? If you did, then you would not sound so foolish talking about government spending.

If Republicans in the 90s "blew money like drunken sailors," and Democrats and Obama have more than tripled the annual budget deficits on their watch, what does that make them?

I would post a graph of the budget deficits of Democrats and Obama juxtaposed against the budget deficits under Bush and the Republican House, but people who can read bar charts are probably tired of seeing them.

Notice how it is easy for me to give Bill Clinton credit for being able to work with House Republicans and how impossible it is for you to reciprocate? You seem to be the lone holdout willing to criticize past Republican spending in the face of the mountain of debt accumulated on Obama's watch.

I agree that both parties have and continue to spend, borrow, and tax too much but there is absolutely no way you can logically ridicule Republicans' spending and not paint Obama and the Democrats with an even bigger brush.

Of course anybody who can support Obama in lockstep and belittle any Republican's intelligence or competence has lost touch with reality, IMO. You carry the idea of supporting a party, right or wrong, to an illogical extreme.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Do you read or watch the news, BillyB? Do you have any clue as to what the deficits were during the previous periods that Republicans controlled the House (or the White House) versus what happened under Pelosi in the House and Obama in the White House? If you did, then you would not sound so foolish talking about government spending.

If Republicans in the 90s "blew money like drunken sailors," and Democrats and Obama have more than tripled the annual budget deficits on their watch, what does that make them?

I would post a graph of the budget deficits of Democrats and Obama juxtaposed against the budget deficits under Bush and the Republican House, but people who can read bar charts are probably tired of seeing them.

Notice how it is easy for me to give Bill Clinton credit for being able to work with House Republicans and how impossible it is for you to reciprocate? You seem to be the lone holdout willing to criticize past Republican spending in the face of the mountain of debt accumulated on Obama's watch.

I agree that both parties have and continue to spend, borrow, and tax too much but there is absolutely no way you can logically ridicule Republicans' spending and not paint Obama and the Democrats with an even bigger brush.

Of course anybody who can support Obama in lockstep and belittle any Republican's intelligence or competence has lost touch with reality, IMO. You carry the idea of supporting a party, right or wrong, to an illogical extreme.

You and I agree on the first part in the Bold

I can criticize because my party would not do it. We would get rid of the IRS,Department of Energy, Department of Education (a state's issue), Reduce military spending, phase out Medicaid, Wealth-Fare, and Medicare. We would end giving money to third world countries, we would shut down the 90 military bases around the world. We would end giving tax breaks to those married or to oil companies, we end giving out money to private enterprises so they can jump start something the public does not want. We also would not have given money to TARP. We would also try to end the Federal Reserve Bank. You know some of things republicans promise to do, but never do. We would also allow anyone to choose their own health insurance, even out of state, again something the republicans would never think of. Just to name a few things. As I my voting record indicates I do vote for this way of thinking.

The republican party is a sham, a disgrace, earmark this, earmark that, give Hala-burton money, bail out failing companies with federal money. Give money to Boeing for some secret super plane, that apparently cost $40 Billion Dollars. (the last contract signed with the US). Another example 2004, prescription drug benefit for seniors,S.Ky. Hey, it will do great for wal-mart and the big boys though Wal-Greens and Rite-Aide, killing small business owners in the same market and I thought republicans care about small business owners because they lead to jobs. :please:

Now Hoot is right, the democrats are worse in these areas. However, a small deficit, is still a deficit. If I have a continuous deficit lets say eight years, you know what happens BANKRUPTCY! But it is ok cause we are at war... or nation building... question if we were at war, we would turn everything in our path into rubble, but we won't, so are we really at war or our troops being used to so some in the US can get contracts to build Iraq? Either way, it is not our troops fault, they are the best and deserve my up most respect and they will always have it. (sorry about that rant, back on target)

When did the law of economics change? I thought if you spent more than you make, you will go under. It doesn't matter how much more you spend then you make, or if you spend just a little more than what you make, you are still spending more.

So in those terms that is why I say there is no difference in the parties. I have again showed you a way that is different than the two main options out there. Join ME:biggrin:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Do you read or watch the news, BillyB? Do you have any clue as to what the deficits were during the previous periods that Republicans controlled the House (or the White House) versus what happened under Pelosi in the House and Obama in the White House? If you did, then you would not sound so foolish talking about government spending.

If Republicans in the 90s "blew money like drunken sailors," and Democrats and Obama have more than tripled the annual budget deficits on their watch, what does that make them?

I would post a graph of the budget deficits of Democrats and Obama juxtaposed against the budget deficits under Bush and the Republican House, but people who can read bar charts are probably tired of seeing them.

Notice how it is easy for me to give Bill Clinton credit for being able to work with House Republicans and how impossible it is for you to reciprocate? You seem to be the lone holdout willing to criticize past Republican spending in the face of the mountain of debt accumulated on Obama's watch.

I agree that both parties have and continue to spend, borrow, and tax too much but there is absolutely no way you can logically ridicule Republicans' spending and not paint Obama and the Democrats with an even bigger brush.

Of course anybody who can support Obama in lockstep and belittle any Republican's intelligence or competence has lost touch with reality, IMO. You carry the idea of supporting a party, right or wrong, to an illogical extreme.

I really have no idea how my comment about spending between 1998 or 2000 and 2008 has to do with Obama. But, regardless, please do tell me the issues on which I am in "lockstep" with Obama.

BillyB Wrote:I really have no idea how my comment about spending between 1998 or 2000 and 2008 has to do with Obama. But, regardless, please do tell me the issues on which I am in "lockstep" with Obama.

It would save a lot of time and space if you just listed the areas with which you disagree with Obama. For example, you have repeatedly accused Bush and Republicans in Congress of "spending like drunken sailors." Strangely, I never recall any similar criticism of Obama and the Democratic Congress, which just broke all spending records by a wide, wide margin. How do you think they have done in that area? Better or worse than Bush and the Republicans when they controlled the House?

Please just list a few major criticisms that you have of the Obama administration. Say what you want about the conservatives who post frequently here, I don't think that any of us have failed to criticize Bush and the Republicans. Can you say the same about your posts? Here's your chance.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:It would save a lot of time and space if you just listed the areas with which you disagree with Obama. For example, you have repeatedly accused Bush and Republicans in Congress of "spending like drunken sailors." Strangely, I never recall any similar criticism of Obama and the Democratic Congress, which just broke all spending records by a wide, wide margin. How do you think they have done in that area? Better or worse than Bush and the Republicans when they controlled the House?

Please just list a few major criticisms that you have of the Obama administration. Say what you want about the conservatives who post frequently here, I don't think that any of us have failed to criticize Bush and the Republicans. Can you say the same about your posts? Here's your chance.

Nice try. But you're the one that wrote that I am in "lockstep" with Obama. Tell me what views of mine are in lockstep with his. Or is it only that I haven't taken to this forum to criticize Obama and the Dems for their spending? Is that all? Better hurry! I leave for vacation soon.

BillyB Wrote:Nice try. But you're the one that wrote that I am in "lockstep" with Obama. Tell me what views of mine are in lockstep with his. Or is it only that I haven't taken to this forum to criticize Obama and the Dems for their spending? Is that all? Better hurry! I leave for vacation soon.

Can't think of any areas where you disagree with Obama, I see. You are pretty much a 100 percent negative poster (all ridicule, all the time) and your ridicule is aimed at one party. I offered you an opportunity to dispel the perception that you support Obama down the line by detailing policy areas in which you do not share Obama's "vision" (or if you prefer, delusions). You declined, to no one's surprise.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Can't think of any areas where you disagree with Obama, I see. You are pretty much a 100 percent negative poster (all ridicule, all the time) and your ridicule is aimed at one party. I offered you an opportunity to dispel the perception that you support Obama down the line by detailing policy areas in which you do not share Obama's "vision" (or if you prefer, delusions). You declined, to no one's surprise.

That's what I thought.

BillyB Wrote:That's what I thought.

I can't think of any conservative who frequents this forum who has not criticized something that President Bush did while he was in office. Nor can I think of any (other) liberal poster who has not found something to criticize Obama over.

Your loyalty to the worst president in American history is unmatched. How do you do it? :popcorn:

I just wanted to tell you guys that I've recently found two videos you might be interested in watching. Here are the videos:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/65706090/

^For this video, it involves Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner warning that if the national debt ceiling isn't increased, it could cause our country to default on its debt.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/67190794/

^For this video, I would like to point out what Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke says at the 2:17 minute mark where he mentions that the growing U.S. budget deficit threatens to slow growth and warns against defaulting on government debt.

Could you guys check one more source? If you're able to, please read an article called, “That Budget ‘Battle’? Only a Skirmish”. You can find this article in The New York Times from Monday, March 21, 2011. It's on page A16. I encourage you to carefully read the second to last paragraph, where Ben Bernanke mentions that our country could default from our own debt. I can't exactly remember what he said about it, though. I'll have to go read about it again.

By the way, can anyone explain to me what it means if we default on our debt? I've been researching about this for awhile now. I thought I knew, but I'm honestly not sure what to think. Could someone help me with this?

Deathstar 80 Wrote:I just wanted to tell you guys that I've recently found two videos you might be interested in watching. Here are the videos:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/65706090/

^For this video, it involves Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner warning that if the national debt ceiling isn't increased, it could cause our country to default on its debt.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/67190794/

^For this video, I would like to point out what Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke says at the 2:17 minute mark where he mentions that the growing U.S. budget deficit threatens to slow growth and warns against defaulting on government debt.

Could you guys check one more source? If you're able to, please read an article called, “That Budget ‘Battle’? Only a Skirmish”. You can find this article in The New York Times from Monday, March 21, 2011. It's on page A16. I encourage you to carefully read the second to last paragraph, where Ben Bernanke mentions that our country could default from our own debt. I can't exactly remember what he said about it, though. I'll have to go read about it again.

By the way, can anyone explain to me what it means if we default on our debt? I've been researching about this for awhile now. I thought I knew, but I'm honestly not sure what to think. Could someone help me with this?

Would you guys mind if you replied to my last post? I know that it's just been a few hours since I typed this last post, but I was just curious about what you guys thought about these sources. Also, I wanted to quickly make sure that these sources were saying what I thought they were saying (just in case).

Deathstar 80 Wrote:Would you guys mind if you replied to my last post? I know that it's just been a few hours since I typed this last post, but I was just curious about what you guys thought about these sources. Also, I wanted to quickly make sure that these sources were saying what I thought they were saying (just in case).

Sorry, Deathstar, but I was going to respond later after following your links. I've been busy researching some equipment and just have not had time to spend on much else. I will try to respond later in more detail. I also am already convinced that our economy is headed for a collapse, so I don't get too enthused over articles that would simply reinforce my belief.

Interest rates will begin to climb rapidly at some point. If the US defaults on its debt, then it would spook investors, which would hit Wall Street hard. Short of a default, as our national debt rises it will become increasingly difficult to obtain financing for it. Interest rates on bonds will skyrocket and politicians will want to raise taxes instead of cutting spending to pay for the extra interest burden.

This country is not immune to the laws of supply and demand and history has many examples of countries undermining the value of their own currency until it becomes worthless. That is where we are headed. When wheelbarrows replace wallets, the government will probably start considering drastic measures.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Sorry, Deathstar, but I was going to respond later after following your links. I've been busy researching some equipment and just have not had time to spend on much else. I will try to respond later in more detail. I also am already convinced that our economy is headed for a collapse, so I don't get too enthused over articles that would simply reinforce my belief.

Interest rates will begin to climb rapidly at some point. If the US defaults on its debt, then it would spook investors, which would hit Wall Street hard. Short of a default, as our national debt rises it will become increasingly difficult to obtain financing for it. Interest rates on bonds will skyrocket and politicians will want to raise taxes instead of cutting spending to pay for the extra interest burden.

This country is not immune to the laws of supply and demand and history has many examples of countries undermining the value of their own currency until it becomes worthless. That is where we are headed. When wheelbarrows replace wallets, the government will probably start considering drastic measures.

Hoot Gibson, you don't have to apologize. Thanks for your reply, though. I honestly didn't expect a reply in just a few hours. Usually, I wait a day or two at least. The reason why I posted again asking for a reply was because I plan on telling others about this pretty soon. If I'm correct of what these videos are saying, then this would be pretty good evidence.

I just looked again at the article that I mentioned above, called "That Budget 'Battle'? Only a Skirmish". Here's a section of this article:

Quote:Possible Compromise

Prospects for compromise appeared to brighten last week when 64 senators, 32 from each party, urged Mr. Obama to seek a "comprehensive" solution touching all three hot-buttons -- discretionary spending, entitlements, and taxes.

But the paths from hortatory letter to long-term deal is steep. Newly empowered House Republicans would have to accept more taxes; Senate Democrats, fighting to keep their majority in 2012, would have to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Referring to the Gang of Six, Robert Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said, "The probability that their fruit will ripen to an eatable state is very low.

At least-common-denomenator outcome might yield targets for limiting spending and deficits as a proportion of the economy. As with the 1980s-era "Gramm-Rudman" efforts, it could include enforcement mechanisms to require later policy choices for meeting those targets.

But even that possible fallback has not eased fears of staemate. The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, has warned that tying a debt-limit increase to a long-term budget deal would risk default and fresh financial "chaos" as the nation tries to leave the 2008 crisis behind.

"The idea that this time some folks want to start the fire..." Mr. Warner said, his words trailing off. "You just have to hope cooler heads will prevail.

I know I'm asking plenty of questions already, but could you guys answer two more questions for me? First, what exactly does it mean for a country to default on their debt? I've tried to look it up myself, but I still don't think I fully understand what this means. Second, how bad is this economic collapse going to be? I've heard that it's going to lead to a second Great Depression. However, I've also heard that it's just going to be a slightly larger recession than the one we had in the year 2008.

Overall, I think these are the three options for our country:
1) Cut spending. (I'm not sure, but I think this could lead to a bad economic recession or even an economic depression.)
2) Continue spending and not increase the national debt limit. (This will lead to a default of our debt.)
3) Continue spending and increase the national debt limit. (It might take awhile, but this will eventually lead to a default of our debt.)

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Can't think of any areas where you disagree with Obama, I see. You are pretty much a 100 percent negative poster (all ridicule, all the time) and your ridicule is aimed at one party. I offered you an opportunity to dispel the perception that you support Obama down the line by detailing policy areas in which you do not share Obama's "vision" (or if you prefer, delusions). You declined, to no one's surprise.

At one time, this was you Hoot, though you are a different person now for some reason. Although you do still ridicule one particular party. You vote down one particular line.

TheRealVille Wrote:At one time, this was you Hoot, though you are a different person now for some reason. Although you do still ridicule one particular party.

No, that was never me but you had that impression. There were always areas in which I openly disagreed with the Bush administration and I have been criticizing Hal Rogers' big spending ways for years. I even voted for his Democratic candidate in protest years ago. That was the last Democrat running for national office that I have voted for and unless things change drastically, it will be the last one that I will vote for in this lifetime. :biggrin:

However, my disgust with big spending Republicans like Rogers does not mean that I have lost all hope in our political system. There are responsible elected officials in the Republican Party but they are a minority. Such people are far more scarce in the Democratic Party, which is why I am a reliable Republican voter despite disagreeing with much of what they do as a party.

We have to wrap these wars up quickly, we've done about all we can for these countries. Its time to let Afghanistan go, and Iraq is wrapping up. The people of these countries have all they need to build a great country for themselves, now whether they are capable or not I dont know, but it makes me glad we had great men and women here where we live about 230 years ago who were capable of building something great.

I saw a poll a few months ago that showed that over 90% of Afghans still dont know why the Americans are there. Which has been a major failure of our govt.

We have to focus on things at home, reduce our debt, strengthen our economy, and reunite our people, sadly we have some major wars coming soon imo. Its only a matter of a few years if not sooner before we are at it with Iran sadly. We can only hope our covert actions to help the people wanting to overthrow the Iran govt are successful.

[quote=Deathstar 80]Hoot Gibson, you don't have to apologize. Thanks for your reply, though. I honestly didn't expect a reply in just a few hours. Usually, I wait a day or two at least. The reason why I posted again asking for a reply was because I plan on telling others about this pretty soon. If I'm correct of what these videos are saying, then this would be pretty good evidence.

I just looked again at the article that I mentioned above, called "That Budget 'Battle'? Only a Skirmish". Here's a section of this article:



I know I'm asking plenty of questions already, but could you guys answer two more questions for me? First, what exactly does it mean for a country to default on their debt? I've tried to look it up myself, but I still don't think I fully understand what this means. Second, how bad is this economic collapse going to be? I've heard that it's going to lead to a second Great Depression. However, I've also heard that it's just going to be a slightly larger recession than the one we had in the year 2008.

Overall, I think these are the three options for our country:
1) Cut spending. (I'm not sure, but I think this could lead to a bad economic recession or even an economic depression.)2) Continue spending and not increase the national debt limit. (This will lead to a default of our debt.)
3) Continue spending and increase the national debt limit. (It might take awhile, but this will eventually lead to a default of our debt.)[/QUOTE]

I think that you are correct in this assumptions. What most people don't realize is that in the CURRENT economic theory that we find ourselves in, once spending stops, the whole system crashes. However, if the spending continues then everything stays a float. The way the spending continues is by the Fed. Reserve Bank, printing more money, that is why rates are artificially low, and the dollar is so cheap.

Here is the link to describe the theory better

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedicti...ian+theory

A Republican would believe in supply-side economics.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedicti...+Economics

A Libertarian would believe in maximizing the individual rights and minimizing the role of state.

tvtimeout Wrote:

Deathstar 80 Wrote:Hoot Gibson, you don't have to apologize. Thanks for your reply, though. I honestly didn't expect a reply in just a few hours. Usually, I wait a day or two at least. The reason why I posted again asking for a reply was because I plan on telling others about this pretty soon. If I'm correct of what these videos are saying, then this would be pretty good evidence.

I just looked again at the article that I mentioned above, called "That Budget 'Battle'? Only a Skirmish". Here's a section of this article:



I know I'm asking plenty of questions already, but could you guys answer two more questions for me? First, what exactly does it mean for a country to default on their debt? I've tried to look it up myself, but I still don't think I fully understand what this means. Second, how bad is this economic collapse going to be? I've heard that it's going to lead to a second Great Depression. However, I've also heard that it's just going to be a slightly larger recession than the one we had in the year 2008.

Overall, I think these are the three options for our country:
1) Cut spending. (I'm not sure, but I think this could lead to a bad economic recession or even an economic depression.)
2) Continue spending and not increase the national debt limit. (This will lead to a default of our debt.)
3) Continue spending and increase the national debt limit. (It might take awhile, but this will eventually lead to a default of our debt.)

I think that you are correct in this assumptions. What most people don't realize is that in the CURRENT economic theory that we find ourselves in, once spending stops, the whole system crashes. However, if the spending continues then everything stays a float. The way the spending continues is by the Fed. Reserve Bank, printing more money, that is why rates are artificially low, and the dollar is so cheap.

Here is the link to describe the theory better

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedicti...ian+theory

A Republican would believe in supply-side economics.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedicti...+Economics

A Libertarian would believe in maximizing the individual rights and minimizing the role of state.

Thanks for posting those links! I learned a lot from them.

No problem:

I would also check out of your Public Library the following books

Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations (gives overview of captialism)
Thomas L. Friedman: Hot, Flat and Crowded (gives overview of where the left wishes to take our economy)
Glenn Beck: Broke (gives overview of what conservatives would do to our economy)