Why Obama Should Not Be the Next President of USA

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Eh, more money comes in for SS and I believe more money in taxes.

This is an incredibly specious answer, but I'm sure you know that - and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I think the concern is more valid than most Obama supporters are admitting.

Obama is not exactly proposing spending cuts, except in Iraq, which is all deficit spending to start! (IIRC, obv)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is an incredibly specious answer, but I'm sure you know that - and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I think the concern is more valid than most Obama supporters are admitting.

Obama is not exactly proposing spending cuts, except in Iraq, which is all deficit spending to start! (IIRC, obv)

Yeah but I'm not an economist so it's a big bunch of not my job to some extent.

Though I'd love to see a balanced budget I really don't think anyone could do it these days. Once you feed a bureaucracy money, it only grows bigger and far too many presidents have done so for far too long. Maybe NASA needs to sell more space tourist rides or something. Plus if the federal government stops spending, a lot of states are going to be in trouble. They rely on federal matching funds for nearly all basic functions from education to interstate repair to medicaid/medicare.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yeah but I'm not an economist so it's a big bunch of not my job to some extent.

Though I'd love to see a balanced budget I really don't think anyone could do it these days. Once you feed a bureaucracy money, it only grows bigger and far too many presidents have done so for far too long. Maybe NASA needs to sell more space tourist rides or something. Plus if the federal government stops spending, a lot of states are going to be in trouble. They rely on federal matching funds for nearly all basic functions from education to interstate repair to medicaid/medicare.

It has been that long since we had a balanced budget. Well, 2000.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...inton.surplus/

[Drolefille]

Booming economy vs. our current not quite a recession yet we hope one?

It was also a GOP Congress with a Democratic president meaning nothing that either of them wanted was really getting done. And no war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Balancing the budget is easy, raise taxes.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Balancing the budget is easy, raise taxes.

Yes, this always pulls up a struggling economy.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Yes, this always pulls up a struggling economy.

It wasn't meant to. The concept of "balancing the budget" is taking in more than you spend (none of this addresses the national debt of course). It's just the opposite of losing weight which is taking in less than you burn off.

Theoretically both are simple, in reality they're not that easy.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It wasn't meant to. The concept of "balancing the budget" is taking in more than you spend (none of this addresses the national debt of course). It's just the opposite of losing weight which is taking in less than you burn off.

Theoretically both are simple, in reality they're not that easy.

I just read this article and the last line in it reminded me of your post (to paraphrase, the math is easy, the politics are hard). Frankly, just the size numbers we're talking about gives me a headache. http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/22/news...ey_mostpopular

The 44th president's $4 trillion headache
The candidates want to do things like reduce taxes and fix health care. But they'll have to deal with the cold realities of the federal budget.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 22 2008: 3:07 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The presidential candidates all have big plans for their time in the White House. Reform health care. Reduce taxes. Close corporate loopholes. Encourage savings. The list goes on.

Like college graduates whose career choices may be limited by their student loan debt, however, the next president could be constrained by the federal budget. ... whole story at link above ...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It wasn't meant to. The concept of "balancing the budget" is taking in more than you spend (none of this addresses the national debt of course). It's just the opposite of losing weight which is taking in less than you burn off.

Theoretically both are simple, in reality they're not that easy.

This doesn't make any sense - if you balance the budget, you are indeed "addressing the national debt" because the surplus can go toward recouping debt. I don't see how these can be severed.

Obviously there are dozens of factors at work, such as trade/inflationary benefits to staying a debtor, the dangers of China pegging its currency to the dollar, whatever - but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of math. Having a surplus -> lowering debt.

I have no idea why you're being so dismissive here - budget concerns seem perfectly valid, given the litany of new programs on both the Obama and Clinton platforms and the state of the economy.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

So many students here are idealists and don't actually consider what real life is like.

Because most of them -- the idealists and the college Republicans -- haven't really experienced real life yet.

It's a good thing that we have such a strong government set up. Even Barack wouldn't be able to run America into the ground in just four years.

Agreed. I mean, Bush has been trying for 8 years, yet the Republic still survives.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Agreed. I mean, Bush has been trying for 8 years, yet the Republic still survives.

LOL!