FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Yep, the money's going to be a problem.





ocalhoun
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_plummeting_taxes



Add that to spending extra money by the trillions, and financing at least one war still, while already being broke... and I think it's pretty clear, there will be problems.

There are only 3 options:

1: Reduce spending. (Not likely with this administration. Rolling Eyes)

2: More taxes. (Remember how you were told that your taxes would NOT go up? We'll see...)

3: Debt. (Debt would just make the problem worse, in the long run.)

It'll be interesting to see which one happens.
deanhills
While I was doing some research for the thread in the Politics Forum on health care, I discovered that ironically the people who get really negatively affected during the economic downturn would be the people who need medical care and can't afford it. Apparently there was a study in 2008 that showed that a 1% increase in the unemployment rate would increase the number of uninsured by 1.1 million. That would ripple into increased state spending on Medicaid and SCHIP by 1.4 billion dollars, just at the time when state government revenues are declining:
Quote:
A report published by the Kaiser Family Foundation in April 2008 found that economic downturns place a significant strain on state Medicaid and SCHIP programs. The authors estimated that a 1% increase in the unemployment rate would increase Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment by 1 million, and increase the number uninsured by 1.1 million. State spending on Medicaid and SCHIP would increase by $1.4 billion (total spending on these programs would increase by $3.4 billion). This increased spending would occur at the same time state government revenues were declining. During the last downturn, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) included federal assistance to states, which helped states avoid tightening their Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility rules. The authors conclude that Congress should consider similar relief for the current economic downturn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

So from your graph it would seem as though the budget is going to be a great nightmare this year, considering that Congress has also voted 1.2 trillion earlier in the year for the bail out of the banks. I still marvel how that could be considered a separate item. Surely these loans should be considered together? Looks as though Congress has now got used to trillions as well, sort of no big deal, and the spending party is revving up again?
AftershockVibe
...

4.) Learn not to invade countries at a cost of between 8 and 12 billion per month with no regard for an exit strategy, let alone reasoned rationale to do so in the first place.


Yes, I know, not helpful at this point but the hole that has been dug would be significantly shallower were it not for this. Blaming any particular administration is unfair.
ocalhoun
AftershockVibe wrote:
...

4.) Learn not to invade countries at a cost of between 8 and 12 billion per month with no regard for an exit strategy, let alone reasoned rationale to do so in the first place.

That would go under the category of "1) reduce spending"...
Quote:

Yes, I know, not helpful at this point but the hole that has been dug would be significantly shallower were it not for this. Blaming any particular administration is unfair.

Who's blaming any particular administration? I do believe I mentioned the war in the list of contributing factors...
ocalhoun wrote:
and financing at least one war still

I say 'one' because the war in Iraq is ending (probably). And I say 'at least' because there's always Iran and N. Korea to worry about.
AftershockVibe
ocalhoun wrote:
Who's blaming any particular administration? I do believe I mentioned the war in the list of contributing factors...


That wasn't meant to come across as accusatory. I'm not American, so have no strong feelings one way or the other in terms of Republican vs. Democrat.

My point was that the biggest money sink by far is the war (or, indeed, wars) which was supported by both parties. Similarly, so were the bank bail-outs, but that isn't nearly as cut-and-dry in terms of being considered an expense (at least in the long term).

ocalhoun wrote:
I say 'one' because the war in Iraq is ending (probably).


It is???
deanhills
AftershockVibe wrote:
My point was that the biggest money sink by far is the war (or, indeed, wars) which was supported by both parties. Similarly, so were the bank bail-outs, but that isn't nearly as cut-and-dry in terms of being considered an expense (at least in the long term).


I don't see the war as purely an expense, and I definitely do not see it as "cut-and-dry". If all of us had the wonderful magical gift of foresight when we enter into any decision, that could make it "cut-and-dry", but decisions like these obviously were not make lightly at the time, and there may have been facts that to this day we do not have in front of us. I personally, with the facts in front of me did not think war with Iraq was a good idea, but then I was not the President of the United States, or Prime Minister of the UK, there were many more people than the Government of the United States involved in that war, let us not forget that. It was not just one individual hot-headed President who on the spur of the moment acted like a hot head. But yes, now in retrospect, with the facts we have in front of us, it would appear not to have been a good decision to make.

However, I don't see it as only an expense. There were many plusses that came out of the more than many negatives. Right now Americans are being seen in a more positive light in Iraq, as instead of just ending the war and walking away, Americans stuck it out and helped to support a society that was in a really bad state, at the risk of more American lives. That is an investment of a kind that says something positive. Americans have been part of the history of Iraq, and in that have learned much more about Iraq, as well as themselves. The experiences in Iraq have helped the Military create different strategies that are more appropriate than before, for Afghanistan. Americans have helped to prop up balance of power in the Middle East, if they had chosen to "flee" the area (and save billions of dollars), Iran would definitely have stepped in the loop, waiting for its moment to step into Iraq. I truly believe that is was a major investment in the safety and security of US citizens at home. Through its presence in the Middle East, the US has much greater access to intelligence of terrorist movements. The fact that Obama is supporting the Military with the addition of more troops to Afghanistan supports this point of view for me.

Finally, this is a positive of a great negative of course, but the US military got tested in war, which gave it the opportunity to overhaul a lot of its hardware and human resources. And make it stronger. Also, in doing that, it has employed a lot of people, not only in the military but all those people involved in armaments, and human resources for the military. So I can't see the billions spent as a simple cut-and-dried expense. It is much more complicated than a bail-out package, and there is perhaps also much that we do not know about.
ocalhoun
AftershockVibe wrote:


ocalhoun wrote:
I say 'one' because the war in Iraq is ending (probably).


It is???

Haven't you heard that most US troops have already been pulled out of the cities, and that a (soon) date has already been set for complete withdrawal? They're talking about which equipment should be shipped back home, and which equipment should be sold to the Iraqi government already.
Related topics
new here, questions
If you had 1,000,000 What would you so with it?
Pirated Software : What if we can't afford original ones
Legality of MP3 site
Real Mafia in bigger trouble than Sopranos
Abortion or Murder?
Forced charity is not charity at all: Foreign Aid Rip-Off
What are your thoughts on gay marriage?
Should marijuana be legal?
Is Obama working on points to get his poll ratings up?
Separation of church and state: my ideal solution.
New health care law a godsend for Texas lawyer, family
US National Debt!
Optimisation-ish
Would you take a lump sum or annually
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.