$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, Ms. Cleo - if your assertion that anyone can Google to find the answers to your questions then why on earth are you openly asking them here in a forum? Were you expecting me to write up an essay for you?

[Peikko 1,575]

No, I was expecting you, a person, to engage in a discussion. If you want to post charts, at least make them relevant to the question, and add some input as to why they are relevant, what part of the questions you are referring to.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, I was expecting you, a person, to engage in a discussion. If you want to post charts, at least make them relevant to the question, and add some input as to why they are relevant, what part of the questions you are referring to.

Come up with a more substantive discussion than merely asking questions to things that you can easily find answers to via Google, and I'll be more than happy to engage.

[Peikko 1,575]

No you wouldn't. This is typical of you Steven, you don't like certain people asking awkward questions so you refuse to answer. That's ok, that's your right, but don't make this about me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No you wouldn't. This is typical of you Steven, you don't like certain people asking awkward questions so you refuse to answer. That's ok, that's your right, but don't make this about me.

Let's hug and find a real controversial topic we can engage each other in.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, I was serious about one thing, I really don't think any government is that concerned about national debt these days. The numbers are just ridiculous to contemplate. Trillions of dollars? That's just madness.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I was serious about one thing, I really don't think any government is that concerned about national debt these days. The numbers are just ridiculous to contemplate. Trillions of dollars? That's just madness.

That's a faulty assumption, but I really don't care to get into a long drawn out debate on that. Given the current circumstances, that trillian dollar deficit is understandable. I'm not saying it's ok, but anyone willing to look into why it is so high will know. As to what is trying to be done about it - Obama wants to let Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy expire. Hopefully we can decrease spending once we have withdrawn a large number of troops out of Iraq. When the economy starts to recover, tax revenues will go up, which will also help.

[Peikko 1,575]

Don't assume I am stupid Mr Pants, and we will get along just fine.

Now, are you saying that the cost of moving the troops out of Iraq into Afghanistan is going to be considerably less? Obama is committed to that course of action, and I can't see it being a cheap option, personally.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't assume I am stupid Mr Pants, and we will get along just fine.

You're projecting.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe, but moving right along, do you have anything to say about the troop deployment in Afghanistan and the projected costs or not?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maybe, but moving right along, do you have anything to say about the troop deployment in Afghanistan and the projected costs or not?

It's difficult to know. I was listening to a female reporter on NPR awhile back who now lives in Afghanistan explaining the complexity of the situation. She seemed to indicate that right now, we need a military presence there, but it's extremely messy and there's an incredible amount of corruption and inefficiency within the Afghan government. I personally would like to see an international peace keeping force gradually take over.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think anyone is under any illusions about the complications of the issues surrounding Afghanistan, and yes, a peace keeping force made up of more than American/British troops would be a much more sound proposition but the fact remains that this administration is committed to sending troops to Afghanistan at this time, at a cost that one can only guestimate, but one that doesn't seem likely to produce savings any time soon at least in my opinion.

More than that, it's hard to see where there are potential savings to be made, in fact, while I support completely the efforts to reform health care for example, I foresee this being an extremely expensive exercise, at least in the short term which leads me to believe that an expectation for the deficit to rise rather than fall is perfectly rational. There's my point really, there are always 'good reasons' to do things that increase the deficit and hardly any 'good reasons' to reduce it. In other words, government spending, no matter how much one rationalizes how sensible that spending is, is always going to be greater than the US people's desire to cover those costs because of the citizens hatred of the dreaded taxes.

While the right wing can successfully persuade people that paying taxes is irrational and un American, this problem will persist.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think anyone is under any illusions about the complications of the issues surrounding Afghanistan, and yes, a peace keeping force made up of more than American/British troops would be a much more sound proposition but the fact remains that this administration is committed to sending troops to Afghanistan at this time, at a cost that one can only guestimate, but one that doesn't seem likely to produce savings any time soon at least in my opinion.

More than that, it's hard to see where there are potential savings to be made, in fact, while I support completely the efforts to reform health care for example, I foresee this being an extremely expensive exercise, at least in the short term which leads me to believe that an expectation for the deficit to rise rather than fall is perfectly rational. There's my point really, there are always 'good reasons' to do things that increase the deficit and hardly any 'good reasons' to reduce it. In other words, government spending, no matter how much one rationalizes how sensible that spending is, is always going to be greater than the US people's desire to cover those costs because of the citizens hatred of the dreaded taxes.

While the right wing can successfully persuade people that paying taxes is irrational and un American, this problem will persist.

While the deficit is important to consider, the volatility of the economic is way more important, IMO. The Republicans are playing a game of bait and switch with this - saying basically our national security (Iraq) was more important than worrying about the deficit, but when Obama and Democrats are essentially saying, 'it's the economy, stupid,' the Republicans suddenly become Chicken Littles, crying that the sky is falling. We have to first stabilize the economy and then we need to put provisions in place that will lesson the likelihood of another deep Recession like this one....and one way to do that is to nationalize healthcare.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

What 1 trillion looks like:

http://www.zee.me/blog/2009/03/what-does-o...lars-look-like/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, I was serious about one thing, I really don't think any government is that concerned about national debt these days. The numbers are just ridiculous to contemplate. Trillions of dollars? That's just madness.

I suppose that some folks on the Republican side agree with you, but not the fiscal conservatives of both parties. Here is a read:

"Deficits Don't Matter."

This is probably going to come off as overly defensive of the president, and it is not intended to. In fact, President Obama has a rough road ahead as he attempts to reconcile nearly a trillion in new spending and tax cuts preceding a "fiscal responsibility" summit.

But, as Republican governors, and talk show hosts, and other GOPers flip out about the deficit, ask yourself: What did they say when a party leader said that paying attention to deficits was a waste of time?

Actually, it was Vice President ####### Cheney, and what he reportedly said was, "Deficits don't matter."

Mr. Cheney had been referring to President Reagan, who saw the deficit blow up during his time in office. And when word surfaced five years ago that Vice President Cheney had cited President Reagan in determining that deficits are irrelevant, well, the outrage on the conservative side was less than deafening.

It's also worth noting that if Republicans had written the bill, it almost certainly would have been just as expensive. Remember, Republicans did not favor doing nothing, but instead favored a different version of the budget-busting bill.

Well, hold on here: One Republican advocated doing nothing. But he's really a Libertarian, not welcome in Republican circles.

The point is, elected lawmakers were going to spend about a trillion dollars to fight this recession, no matter which party had control. That doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze the efficacy of the programs -- no doubt we should, and we will. But the truth is, there aren't a whole lot of people anywhere these days who argue for the government to spend less and take the hands off the wheel. In that regard, Republicans are not so different from Democrats.

http://www.13wham.com/content/news/politic...2WrB8u3XVQ.cspx