PDA

View Full Version : Timothy Geithner , We dont know what were doing !



INTIMADATOR2007
02-17-2012, 08:45 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/geithner-to-ryan-white-house-has-no-definitive-solution-to-debt-crisis-and-we-dont-want-yours/



Given the fact that it has gotten to the point where Geithner is openly admitting that the White House has no “definitive solution” to the debt crisis, and that he’s most likely on his way out anyway, the real reason for his jovial frankness in front of the House Budget Committee might be because, well, he doesn’t’ give a “$%&.”

AUTaxMan
02-17-2012, 10:36 PM
He admitted the administration has no plan to reduce the debt. Basically said to Paul ryan, "We don't have a plan, but we don't like yours."

mrveggieman
02-20-2012, 08:20 AM
"We don't have a plan, but we don't like yours."


The motto for the GOP. :smokin:

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 09:28 AM
The motto for the GOP. :smokin:

Still waiting for you to bring anything of substance to a political discussion on this board.

tsjct
02-20-2012, 09:32 AM
Still waiting for you to bring anything of substance to a political discussion on this board.

It is impossible for him to do that.:sign0020:

pghin08
02-20-2012, 09:33 AM
There shouldn't be an urgency to reduce the debt right this very second. Our focus should be on getting people back to work. It's not rocket science. If we get more people employed, the more taxes they pay, the more revenue the government has, and the less the deficit will be. We can focus on debt reduction measures once we get unemployment at a somewhat reasonable level.

tsjct
02-20-2012, 09:38 AM
There shouldn't be an urgency to reduce the debt right this very second. Our focus should be on getting people back to work. It's not rocket science. If we get more people employed, the more taxes they pay, the more revenue the government has, and the less the deficit will be. We can focus on debt reduction measures once we get unemployment at a somewhat reasonable level.

As a Small business owner which is the BIGGEST employer in every aspect of our economy i am NOT hiring one person right now. Obama is ANTI business and thinks he can Stimulate the economy with his SPENDING. Will never NEVER work. I am just ONE small business so how many are doing what i am?

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 09:44 AM
There shouldn't be an urgency to reduce the debt right this very second. Our focus should be on getting people back to work. It's not rocket science. If we get more people employed, the more taxes they pay, the more revenue the government has, and the less the deficit will be. We can focus on debt reduction measures once we get unemployment at a somewhat reasonable level.

We can't make enough money as a society to significantly reduce our indebtedness. Entitlement reform must be addressed immediately. We could tax people at record rates and still not raise enough revenue. The numbers are out there.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 09:47 AM
On some level, I agree with you both. But massive austerity measures placed on an already shaky economy would be a disaster. We need to address it, but we need stability first.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 09:48 AM
As a Small business owner which is the BIGGEST employer in every aspect of our economy i am NOT hiring one person right now. Obama is ANTI business and thinks he can Stimulate the economy with his SPENDING. Will never NEVER work. I am just ONE small business so how many are doing what i am?

And to be fair, it IS working. Consumer confidence is continuing to rise, and the unemployment rate continues to fall.

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 09:49 AM
On some level, I agree with you both. But massive austerity measures placed on an already shaky economy would be a disaster. We need to address it, but we need stability first.

If we take measured austerity measures now, we won't have to undergo massive austerity in the future. Again, Obama wants to spend more, not less. He is a Marxist, and he wants more people reliant on the government, because that will give him more power to shape the country as he sees fit.

tsjct
02-20-2012, 09:52 AM
And to be fair, it IS working. Consumer confidence is continuing to rise, and the unemployment rate continues to fall.

I will copy and Print this whole Thread and then will put it back up in one year. I can promise we will be in worse shape then than we are now. Mark my word.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 09:54 AM
I will copy and Print this whole Thread and then will put it back up in one year. I can promise we will be in worse shape then than we are now. Mark my word.

Done. I totally disagree.

By the way, I should say that I agree with both a reduction in spending, and big time entitlement reform (I also believe in major tax reform, but that's an even further down the road issue). It's just a timing problem to me.

duane1969
02-20-2012, 01:32 PM
And to be fair, it IS working. Consumer confidence is continuing to rise, and the unemployment rate continues to fall.

Rising consumer confidence and a few thousand more jobs are doing nothing to change the fact that our yearly spending is right at 95% of the GDP nor is it changing the fact that our government is spending 2x what it takes in.

You above anyone else here should know that an entity that spends twice what it takes in will fail. There is no such thing as success in fiscal irresponsibility.




By the way, I should say that I agree with both a reduction in spending, and big time entitlement reform (I also believe in major tax reform, but that's an even further down the road issue). It's just a timing problem to me.

That is the bulk of the problem. There is no intentions to reduce spending, reform entitlement programs or reform the tax code in the future. The current government plan is to spend, spend, spend and hope it fixes itself.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 02:16 PM
Rising consumer confidence and a few thousand more jobs are doing nothing to change the fact that our yearly spending is right at 95% of the GDP nor is it changing the fact that our government is spending 2x what it takes in.

You above anyone else here should know that an entity that spends twice what it takes in will fail. There is no such thing as success in fiscal irresponsibility.



That is the bulk of the problem. There is no intentions to reduce spending, reform entitlement programs or reform the tax code in the future. The current government plan is to spend, spend, spend and hope it fixes itself.


You guys seem to think that I'm against forms of austerity. I'm not. It needs to happen. But I can tell you right now that the US is not at the precipice of chaos. We're actually seeing signs of broad market stability: employment, manufacturing, housing, etc.

Massive austerity programs against the headwind of a struggling economy doesn't work. Europe is even starting to realize this. Just this past week, they've signaled a massive priority shift towards growth rather than austerity. And most economists agree. That's what Obama is trying to do here. He's attempting to focus on short-medium term growth, with the goal to being to stabilize prior to spending cuts.

I've said a billion times on here that over the long-term, we need to address tax reform and entitlements. I'm a Democrat, but I'm also a realist. And I've been disappointed by Obama's prancing around the issue, and his disregard for his own deficit reduction committee (Simpson-Bowles). However, I agree with the administration's stance on focusing on growth before cuts. Contrary to what some people on here think, the US will NOT go bankrupt tomorrow.

tsjct
02-20-2012, 02:21 PM
http://www.defeatthedebt.com/understanding-the-national-debt/how-much-do-we-owe/

What do we do if CHINA and the rest says NO MORE money pay us off now!

pghin08
02-20-2012, 02:38 PM
http://www.defeatthedebt.com/understanding-the-national-debt/how-much-do-we-owe/

What do we do if CHINA and the rest says NO MORE money pay us off now!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2012/01/22/china-is-175-6-dependent-on-the-u-s/

And alienate the greatest trading partner they've ever had? Not likely.

tsjct
02-20-2012, 02:53 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2012/01/22/china-is-175-6-dependent-on-the-u-s/

And alienate the greatest trading partner they've ever had? Not likely.

Well i guess my main point was the INTEREST alone per day is crazy and we are still spending out of control. If we spent money on legitimate things i am ok with it but the STUPID spending is what pisses me off. Just like the OBAMA economic plan he turned in last week that even Harry Reid says will not pass. That stupid thing cost the tax payers over 2 Million just to produce. That is the kind of crap that goes on daily with our Anointed One as president.

theonedru
02-20-2012, 03:13 PM
I see the way my city (Seattle) works and apply it to America

Seattle is a billion $ in debt, yet they constantly state things like "we have $3 million set aside for road maintenance programs " or "we have $1 million set aside for snow removal" and I am like your a billion in the hole you do not have money for squat. You need to cut all non essential spending and shut down all non essential governmental agencies/services and apply it towards the debt.

*censored*
02-21-2012, 10:30 AM
That's where the past two administrations have completely screwed us over. Bush cut taxes. Good for him, good for us. But where were the spending cuts to go along with it? I don't recall seeing any. So after 8 years of that, we're in it deep. Obama comes along, and spends even more and even gives a slight further reduction in taxes.

Simple question: WHY?!

I've always thought the lower-taxes-but-spend-anyway tact of the Republicans is largely a ploy so that if/when a Democrat raises taxes to pay off that debt, they can jump up and down pointing and screaming "ZOMG LOOK AT TEH TAX AND SPEND DEMMYCRAT!!!1" and get the masses all up in arms over it and nearly guarantee their return to power.

Obama was stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" paradox where either he can raise taxes and say "Sorry, but I had to," or he can keep on going with the same policy and go "Well don't blame me, Bush did it first!" Or, there's the "Sorry folks, we're cutting the purse strings, no more free stuff for you." Obviously, the middle was the road taken.

Fact is, if you raise taxes to pay it off, the people will hate you. If you don't touch it and just let it fester, the people will hate you. If you cut the people's freebies, they'll hate you. What functional option is there? Neither party has shown any inclination to take a hard stand and use one of those plans to reduce the debt. And if there's a way to do it that I failed to mention, please, by all means, list it.

pghin08
02-21-2012, 10:35 AM
That's where the past two administrations have completely screwed us over. Bush cut taxes. Good for him, good for us. But where were the spending cuts to go along with it? I don't recall seeing any. So after 8 years of that, we're in it deep. Obama comes along, and spends even more and even gives a slight further reduction in taxes.

Simple question: WHY?!

I've always thought the lower-taxes-but-spend-anyway tact of the Republicans is largely a ploy so that if/when a Democrat raises taxes to pay off that debt, they can jump up and down pointing and screaming "ZOMG LOOK AT TEH TAX AND SPEND DEMMYCRAT!!!1" and get the masses all up in arms over it and nearly guarantee their return to power.

Obama was stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" paradox where either he can raise taxes and say "Sorry, but I had to," or he can keep on going with the same policy and go "Well don't blame me, Bush did it first!" Or, there's the "Sorry folks, we're cutting the purse strings, no more free stuff for you." Obviously, the middle was the road taken.

Fact is, if you raise taxes to pay it off, the people will hate you. If you don't touch it and just let it fester, the people will hate you. If you cut the people's freebies, they'll hate you. What functional option is there? Neither party has shown any inclination to take a hard stand and use one of those plans to reduce the debt. And if there's a way to do it that I failed to mention, please, by all means, list it.

Um. Bankruptcy?

duane1969
02-21-2012, 12:21 PM
You guys seem to think that I'm against forms of austerity. I'm not. It needs to happen. But I can tell you right now that the US is not at the precipice of chaos. We're actually seeing signs of broad market stability: employment, manufacturing, housing, etc.

Massive austerity programs against the headwind of a struggling economy doesn't work. Europe is even starting to realize this. Just this past week, they've signaled a massive priority shift towards growth rather than austerity. And most economists agree. That's what Obama is trying to do here. He's attempting to focus on short-medium term growth, with the goal to being to stabilize prior to spending cuts.

I've said a billion times on here that over the long-term, we need to address tax reform and entitlements. I'm a Democrat, but I'm also a realist. And I've been disappointed by Obama's prancing around the issue, and his disregard for his own deficit reduction committee (Simpson-Bowles). However, I agree with the administration's stance on focusing on growth before cuts. Contrary to what some people on here think, the US will NOT go bankrupt tomorrow.

The thing for me is that I don't see why we have to have one or the other. Why is it either we spend our way out of a recession or we cut spending to reduce the burden? Why can't both be done? Why is it not possible for our government to invest in infrastructure, "job creation" programs and increasing GDP while at the same time reducing unneeded spending?

Without reducing entitlement programs there are still many ways to cut government spending that will not inhibit economic growth. 20% of government spending is on something other than pensions, welfare, defense, health care and education. Most of that is pure pork.

Wickabee
02-21-2012, 12:28 PM
If we take measured austerity measures now, we won't have to undergo massive austerity in the future. Again, Obama wants to spend more, not less. He is a Marxist, and he wants more people reliant on the government, because that will give him more power to shape the country as he sees fit.
If you don't like him that's fine, but Marxist? You HAVE to be kidding.

Or do you think all Democrats are communists like many Republicans seem to?

pghin08
02-21-2012, 12:39 PM
The thing for me is that I don't see why we have to have one or the other. Why is it either we spend our way out of a recession or we cut spending to reduce the burden? Why can't both be done? Why is it not possible for our government to invest in infrastructure, "job creation" programs and increasing GDP while at the same time reducing unneeded spending?

Without reducing entitlement programs there are still many ways to cut government spending that will not inhibit economic growth. 20% of government spending is on something other than pensions, welfare, defense, health care and education. Most of that is pure pork.

You could, but it's really like tossing a bucket of water on a house fire. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of discretionary spending that isn't pork. We've already done some cutting there too. Federal funding for high-speed rail is gone in 2012 and they've cut the Race to the Top program by almost 20%.

What I want to know is why we can't touch defense? Republicans continue to stymie this, and there are Dems who are averse to it as well. Why do we need 90,000 troops between Germany and Japan alone? I mean, my goodness, our defense budget is like 6 times bigger than China's!

duwal
02-21-2012, 06:03 PM
If you don't like him that's fine, but Marxist? You HAVE to be kidding.



he won't pass up the chance to take a cheap shot at the president

*censored*
02-21-2012, 06:59 PM
Um. Bankruptcy?

Okay, let me rephrase that. I'm looking for a way of doing it that doesn't make the country look like more of a joke than it already has. Cleveland took enough flack for defaulting on its loans in the 1970's. Last thing we need is an entire country doing it (though my hometown would suddenly not look so bad).

Wickabee
02-21-2012, 10:12 PM
he won't pass up the chance to take a cheap shot at the president
That's no cherap shot. A cheap shot is when I use Gingrich as an example of the sanctity of marriage.

That Marxist comment was a flat out baseless lie.

AUTaxMan
02-22-2012, 10:08 AM
If you don't like him that's fine, but Marxist? You HAVE to be kidding.

Or do you think all Democrats are communists like many Republicans seem to?

His policies, writings, and the people he surrounds himself with clearly indicate that he is a Marxist. Of course not all Democrats are communists, but Obama is a Marxist.

Wickabee
02-22-2012, 11:17 AM
His policies, writings, and the people he surrounds himself with clearly indicate that he is a Marxist. Of course not all Democrats are communists, but Obama is a Marxist.
I'll put it this way. If Obama is a Marxist then Bush was a Fascist, JFK was an Anarchist and Stalin and Hitler were pretty good guys.

I'll put it another way. If you can come up with an actual reason he's a Marxist instead of "his policies" "his writings". I've read some of his stuff and I've never seen Marxism in him.

Again, if you don't like him fine, don't lie.