The $3.6 Trillion Dollar Baby

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

The $3.6 Trillion Dollar Baby

Posted: 2/27/09 at 9:28am

Please let Obama's gambit pay off. Once an adjustment is made for stimulus spending, there is no apparent reduction in spending this fiscal year. It's not clear to me just when we're supposed to get out of the hole. WaPo provides an interesting graph at the link below.

Papa & Goth--whom could we go to war with to get us out such dire financial straits? Sorry, wrong party.

Yawper--I say give the Big 3 the latest loan on one condition. That is, Big 3 retirees agree to pay a bigger portion of their own health insurance premium above the $11 on average they pay now. If they gotta kick the UAW to the curb to seal the deal, then so be it.

It's crystal clear that this great nation is one misstep away from second world status.
the prez' FY09 budget

#FactsMatter...your feelings not so much.

re: The $3.6 Trillion Dollar Baby

Posted: 2/27/09 at 9:42am

While I'm not an advocate of deficits, WaPo's comparison in the short-term is somewhat apples and oranges. The Bush admin excluded the cost of wars and disaster funding from their budgets.

I am usually in favor of fiscal conservatism, but our current situation is extraordinary, and I just don't see how government cutting taxes and watching from the sidelines is going to work. I get that economies are cyclical, but I think these times call for more active government spending. Plus, our roads, bridges, electrical grid, etc, are all woefully archaic.

"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson

re: The $3.6 Trillion Dollar Baby

Posted: 2/27/09 at 9:45am

The Bush admin excluded the cost of wars and disaster funding from their budgets.

Why don't Democrats ever think of things like that? Just delete the items from the budget that make it look bad.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71