Usa Thread

[Hugh_Hoy]

Call them what you like, they all seem to be poised to kick Obama's ass out of office next year.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-virtually-tied-election-match-ups-romney-perry-151926037.html

 

HH

 

In obvious response to above, the NYSE did well today, while my poor Gold Eagles took a dive.

 

HH

[Flashermac]

Gallup Poll job approval rating ... 38%.

 

Plus ...

 

<< MINERAL, Va. (AP) — The most powerful earthquake to strike the East Coast in 67 years shook buildings and rattled nerves from South Carolina to Maine on Tuesday. Frightened office workers spilled into the streets in New York, and parts of the White House, Capitol and Pentagon were evacuated.

 

There were no immediate reports of deaths, but fire officials in Washington said there were at least some injuries. >>

 

 

My link

[Steve]

I did a quick google of some polls and Romney is not far off in swing states against Obama and leads him in Florida. Romney is the establishment candidate for the Republicans. I'm not sure what I'm getting with him though. He seems moderate and you have to be in Massachusetts. The far right candidates scare me and I think won't win. Perry and Bachman have not impressed me. In fact, I'd worry about the country if they were elected. No problem with Hunstman so far. So far he seems to be a good candidate and his backhanded criticism of the Tea Party was good to hear but I'm gun shy about Republicans right now. Obama is no party either but once again its a better of two evils and the devil I know. I also think no matter what he tries, even if its good, Republicans will stop it because they smell blood in the water. The Republicans not backing to extend a tax cut tells me all I need to know. Its made me suspicious of

 

Libya is turning out to be a success. I heard one of the NeoCons, Charles Krauthammer, still have lots of criticism. Particularly about not going in early enough. Why jump in when we are in two countries already? Foreign policy is one of the few highlights.

 

State of politics sucks.

[Flashermac]

Reports are that Libya's proposed new constitution will be based on Sharia law - not a great improvement over Ghaddafi, if any at all.

[Steve]

My view is that I am not worried with regards to the long term with countries that choose that nowadays. I think like Iran, the people will find it too cumbersome and that they will tire of those who want to interpret the vagaraies of it their way. Just like Christianity, its not black and white and there are different interpretations.

I think its a life cycle. They start out that way and eventually tire of it. Also, its their country, they can choose any form of government they want.

Saudi Arabia becomes a notable exception because they host the holy cities so they have to place themselves on a higher religious plane to the rest of the moslem world.

Moslem countries eventually will emulate Turkey.

[Flashermac]

I once mentioned to a Pakistani that Indonesia was the largest Muslim country in the world. And right next to it is Muslim Malaysia, a very developed and modern country. He answered that he didn't "really consider them to be Muslims". It seems they aren't fanatical enough.

[Flashermac]

Spending, not entitlements, created huge deficit

 

 

 

It's conventional wisdom in Washington to blame the federal government's dire financial outlook on runaway entitlement spending. Unless we rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the conventional wisdom goes, the federal government is headed for disaster.

 

That's true in the long run. But what is causing massive deficits now? Is it the same entitlements that threaten the future?

 

Yes, say some conservatives who favor making entitlement reform a key issue in the 2012 campaign. "We're $1.5 trillion in debt," Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said Sunday, referring to this year's projected deficit. "Where's the debt coming from? It's coming from entitlements."

 

There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.

 

That's an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue in a very short time. Put them together, and that's how you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit.

 

But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No: The deficits are largely the result not of entitlements but of an explosion in spending related to the economic downturn and the rise of Democrats to power in Washington. While entitlements must be controlled in the long run, Washington's current spending problem lies elsewhere.

 

A lot of the higher spending has stemmed directly from the downturn. There is, for example, spending on what is called "income security" -- that is, for unemployment compensation, food stamps and related programs. In 2007, the government spent $365 billion on income security. In 2011, it's estimated to spend $622 billion. That's an increase of $257 billion.

 

Then there is Medicaid, the health care program for lower-income Americans. A lot of people had lower incomes due to the economic downturn, and federal expenditures on Medicaid -- its costs are shared with the states -- went from $190 billion in 2007 to an estimated $276 billion in 2011, an increase of $86 billion. Put that together with the $257 billion increase in income security spending, and you have $343 billion.

 

Add to that the $338 billion in decreased revenues, and you get $681 billion -- which means nearly half of the current deficit can be clearly attributed to the downturn.

 

That's a deficit increase that would have happened in an economic crisis whether Republicans or Democrats controlled Washington. But it was the specific spending excesses of President Obama and the Democrats that shot the deficit into the stratosphere.

 

There is no line in the federal budget that says "stimulus," but Obama's massive $814 billion stimulus increased spending in virtually every part of the federal government. "It's spread all through the budget," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "It was essentially a down payment on the Obama domestic agenda." Green jobs, infrastructure, health information technology, aid to states -- it's all in there, billions in increased spending.

 

As for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP -- it has no specific line in the budget, either, but that is because it was anticipated to pay nearly all of its own cost, which it has.

 

Spending for Social Security and Medicare did go up in this period -- $162 billion and $119 billion, respectively -- but by incremental and predictable amounts that weren't big problems in previous years. "We're getting older one year at a time, and health care costs grow at 7 or 8 percent a year," says Holtz-Eakin. If Social Security and Medicare were the sole source of the current deficit, it would be a lot smaller than it is.

 

The bottom line is that with baby boomers aging, entitlements will one day be a major budget problem. But today's deficit crisis is not one of entitlements. It was created by out-of-control spending on everything other than entitlements. The recent debt-ceiling agreement is supposed to put the brakes on that kind of spending, but leaders have so far been maddeningly vague on how they'll do it.

 

This issue could be an important one in the coming presidential race. Should Republicans base their platform on entitlement reform, or should they focus on the here and now -- specifically, on undoing the damage done by Obama and his Democratic allies? In coming months, the answer will likely become clear: entitlements someday, but first things first.

 

 

Byron York

[Steve]

We don't have to make it permanent but I would like both parties to say that that the next President whomever he is, gets line item veto power for the first budget after election. Lets see how much pork gets cut out. I love the idea of line item veto but Congress would never allow it. It makes sense. You vote on the specific issue. Why have riders on bills that are totally unrelated to the matter at hand. Let it stand on its own merit.

[Bangkoktraveler]

In obvious response to above, the NYSE did well today, while my poor Gold Eagles took a dive.

 

HH

 

 

I don't think you have looked at Michelle Bachmann's website yet?

 

It is pathetic.

 

Basically it says over and over how bad Obama is but forgets to qualify any of the expressions.

 

She makes the claim of balancing the budget but forgot to mention how she is going to do that.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Reports are that Libya's proposed new constitution will be based on Sharia law - not a great improvement over Ghaddafi, if any at all.

 

The Conservatives proclaim a victory for democracy in Libya, Egypt, etc. even though the governments that are being replaced seemed to be worst. Figure it out.