BelichickFan

It's just basic math, he's putting us so far in debt that compound interest will take over. The only way he can try to make it work out is with hugely optimistic estimates on economic growth. Unless that happens, he cannot succeed and will put us under water in a tidal wave of debt. If people think we will have excellent GDP growth starting next year, great; if not he has finished us off.

Real World

I'm trying to figure out what the end game is here. At what figure do we reach a breaking point? 60 years of red ink, and over $11 trillion in national debt, and rising. Yikes.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

BelichickFan

It's why I say he's destined to be a failure unless something shocking happens. It's like me being $50K in debt - a lot for me but I could manage it over the years to suddenly being $750K in debt. Absolutely unmanageable with my only change to be winning the lottery.

PatriotsReign

NO SECOND TERM!!

Patters, you're dreaming if you think for a minute that Obama will get re-elected if he keeps up with his current trend. He is alienating the very people who voted for him...the middle class. The things he wants are not the things we want, I'll guarantee you that.

The middle class is not looking for a leveling of the economic playing field, you can bet the house on that. And I'm talking about democrats like myself.

By far his biggest promise was NOT TO INCREASE TAXES UPON THOSE MAKING LESS THAN $250K....what do you think is happening to that promise Patters? A candidate can NOT be elected based upon a set of promises, break those promises and then expect to get re-elected. Just from a moral standpoint, even you should agree with that.

The votes of the poor won't get anyone into office, so I don't understand why he's doing what he's doing. If things continue to go this way, I will definately vote independent or republican in 3 1/2 years.

PatsFanInVa

Exactly how is 9.7T at the end of Bush to 10T plus under Obama like you going from 50K in debt to 750K in debt?

BelichickFan

My example wasn't to the right scare but you are WAY off :

Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com

I know that is DEFICIT not DEBT but that graph shows what obama is adding to Bush's debt and it's not the number you said, it also doesn't account for Cap&Tax or his $1.5T healthcare fiasco.

PatsFanInVa

Yep, so your opinion is that the CBO's estimate of the economic recovery (we are projecting; we have to use some assumption,) is wrong.

Now there are a few points here:

1) a great deal of Obama's spending is ICU spending on the basket case left by Bush, but also

2) You legitimately point out that Obama's spending does not stop at ONLY fixing the mess he inherited. He is targeting other issues besides cleaning up Bush's mess. This is what you legitimately call "Obama's spending."

3) As to the CBO vs. White House estimates, the outside estimate is doubling the debt over 10 years -- not quite the same as "he already done doubled the debt!" -- and that would be exactly the Bush track record, in terms of order of magnitude. Of course since he'd be pulling the trick on Bush's 10T, Obama's total bill -- including Bush clean-ups -- would be even higher than Bush's. I hear you on that count.

Now then:

Let's look at the White House's projections and reasoning. Here's part of the budget narrative for '10:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssumptions.pdf

In Chart 12-5, the administration directly addresses the CBO estimates vs. the administration estimates:

The Obama estimate for growth for the 5 years after a recession is an annualized rate of 3.8%.

The CBO estimate is 3.7%.

The historical average is 4.2%.

I am sure you will find much fault throughout this document, however your assumption and the CBO's assumption of a weak recovery -- even over five years -- seem somewhat at odds with historical experience. Typically the depth of a recession correlates with the strength of the recovery that follows. The WH acknowledges this, and shoots low anyway. CBO shoots lower.

Is this an article of faith, since it is at odds with historical experience?

PFnV