With all due respect Mr.President, we’re still waiting

[Wild Cobra]

With all due respect Mr.President, we’re still waiting (http://www.cato.org/files/DownsizingAd.pdf)


It’s been nearly two years since you made that pledge, Mr. President. Since then, you’ve signed into law an $800 billion “stimulus” package and a massive new health care entitlement—adding trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to our grandchildren’s tab.

Our looming debt crisis threatens to destroy the American dream for future generations. Yet your administration continues piling up deficits of over a trillion dollars a year. By 2012 our national debt will be larger than the entire U.S. economy. Isn’t it past time you identified the programs you’d cut?

In all fairness, both parties got us into this mess. “Deficits don’t matter,” Vice President Dick Cheney scoffed as the Bush administration and a Republican Congress led one of the biggest spending sprees in American history, nearly doubling federal outlays over eight years. Our bipartisan flight from responsibility is a national disgrace—and it’s fast becoming a national disaster. Vague promises to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” won’t cut it any more. Both parties need to step up with specific and substantial cuts.

As a start, they can consult downsizingGovernment.org,where the Cato Institute has begun posting the results of our page by page, line by line review of the federal budget. With the Constitution as our guide, we’ve identified scores of agencies to eliminate and programs to zero out, putting America on the path toward fiscal sanity:

It goes on with a paragraph each for 10 topics. Education Subsidies, Farm Subsidies, Military Overreach, Transportation programs, Housing Subsidies, Federal Worker Pay, Energy Subsidies, Government-run Health Care, Drug War, and Social security. It's a worth while read.

[ChumpDumper]

Does it cover 10 years of tax cuts?

[boutons_deux]

Cato is part of the VRWC, funded about 50% with oil money. They are professional, paid liars.

"Yet your administration continues piling up deficits of over a trillion dollars a year."

You Lie.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

This is nothing but VRWC deficit-scaremongering as a another tactic to keep starving the beast.

The deficit is almost completely

1) Repug unfunded bogus/botched war

2) Repug unfunded tax cuts

3) Repug 35+ years of mismanaged/bubble-y/unregulated financial sector and Banksters Great Depression. (Repugs want to repeal the weak financial regulation and defund CFPA)

TARP will turn a profit, and soon.

[Wild Cobra]

Repug this, repug that...

The demonrats have controlled congress for some time now, and things are getting worse. Not better.

[ElNono]

This is not meant to be a defense of Obama (or Bush, who Cato criticized broadly on many issues too).

The reality is that Crane, Pope, Koch et all don't need to wait for anything. All they need to do is get up their lazy asses, run on their doctrine and ideas, and let the people decide if they're full of shit or not. I'm tired of all these 'think tanks' like Cato, Heritage, etc. that know the solution to everything, criticize from their cozy soapbox, but don't feel like moving a finger to actually do the shit they preach.

[Veterinarian]

Which retarded nickname is lamer? Repug or demonrat? I gotta go with demonrat, although they're both ultra-lame.

[TinTin]

I don't live in America (but it beats the hell out of our politics). I remember hearing Obama say something like people making over 200k will be taxed and the rest along with small businesses wont be. Was there something like that?

[TinTin]

tbh I am just interested in hearing what Obama promised and what has he tried to accomplish so far. I would go read about it on net but almost every site is stating it with some kind of bias and I am not proficient in politics to differentiate them yet without additional info

[TDMVPDPOY]

so how much has obama admin spent already? compared to bush admin?

[Winehole23]

Isn’t it past time you identified the programs you’d cut? The GOP does no better than the Dems on this one.

Talking in a broad way about smaller government is tactically preferable to getting real particular about whose neck you think is (or should be)
on the chopping block in an election year. I get that.

But it blows me away that tax cuts are now floated without any discussion at all of how they will be paid for, by the nominal conservatives in the debate.

[Crookshanks]

These are not tax cuts - it's just keeping the current rates in place. And - you don't PAY for tax cuts! It just means the government needs to keep the spending levels the same because revenues will be pretty much the same.

It's like you being mad at your boss because you wanted to buy a bigger house and he didn't give you the pay raise you wanted.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I want to see what the GOP is going cut... why don't we ever hear that?

[boutons_deux]

"It just means the government needs to keep the spending levels the same because revenues will be pretty much the same."

which means keeping the Repug tax cuts in place means the deficit will be nearly $4T worse in the next 10 years.

To reduce spending to match the Repug deficit, which govt programs do you want to cut? Be very specific, as if you were head of the Congressional finance/budget committee.

[Stringer_Bell]

I don't live in America (but it beats the hell out of our politics). I remember hearing Obama say something like people making over 200k will be taxed and the rest along with small businesses wont be. Was there something like that?

Anyone over 250K income will be taxed for income over that amount according to Pre-Bush Tax Cut numbers (Making 251K, you get old tax rates on that 1K). Everyone making under 250K have their taxes applied to Bush's rates which are set to expire. If the Tax Cuts expire, everyone's taxes go back to the rates of the Clinton years. So basically, Obama wants to raise taxes on the richest people's income over 250K, but the Republicans argue that it discourages people from the American dream...which looking at the innovation, markets and confidence in the economy is out of reach anyway (at least in the way we've come to identify the American dream). HOWEVER, what the Republicans don't realize is that people care more about putting food on the table and a roof over their heads than whether or not people making 250K get tax cuts - although the Republicans act like they are related, thus people get confused.

Obama has been President during one of the most gutless, pussy-fied assemblies of Congress ever, but he's managed to navigate around ending combat operations in Iraq...that's pretty much all I think has happened.

[JoeChalupa]

Kick it up a notch President Obama!! Yes you can!!

[JoeChalupa]

Listen to Bill!!

[CavsSuperFan]

What if we just eliminated personal income tax altogether…Stop punishing achievement…:greedy

[TinTin]

Anyone over 250K income will be taxed for income over that amount according to Pre-Bush Tax Cut numbers (Making 251K, you get old tax rates on that 1K). Everyone making under 250K have their taxes applied to Bush's rates which are set to expire. If the Tax Cuts expire, everyone's taxes go back to the rates of the Clinton years. So basically, Obama wants to raise taxes on the richest people's income over 250K, but the Republicans argue that it discourages people from the American dream...which looking at the innovation, markets and confidence in the economy is out of reach anyway (at least in the way we've come to identify the American dream). HOWEVER, what the Republicans don't realize is that people care more about putting food on the table and a roof over their heads than whether or not people making 250K get tax cuts - although the Republicans act like they are related, thus people get confused.

Obama has been President during one of the most gutless, pussy-fied assemblies of Congress ever, but he's managed to navigate around ending combat operations in Iraq...that's pretty much all I think has happened.

Thanks for the reply, this along with the websites make more sense now.

So he has to wait for the previous tax cuts to expire to instate new ones ? I thought he could pass it right away or does the minority party have to agree as well?

I got into an argument with my friend the other day about where are obama's tax cuts since he has been in office for nearly 2 years (not sure if they are better or not, net just says middle class get the cuts while the 2% don't) and I didn't know what to make of it

[boutons_deux]

Repug this, repug that...

The demonrats have controlled congress for some time now, and things are getting worse. Not better.

yes, the Repug toxic chickens hatched in the Reign of Error are still coming home to roost. 2 unfunded wars, unregulated/unenforced corps, unfunded tax cuts, mismanged econony, etc, etc.

Why do you expect any Congress to fix "things"?

Isn't the free market capable of stability and self-repair?

The Repugs say in their pledege they are listening to the people. What do you tell the Repugs they should do if/when they get control of Congress?

What has Dem Congress done wrong that make "things worse"?

[101A]

This is not meant to be a defense of Obama (or Bush, who Cato criticized broadly on many issues too).

The reality is that Crane, Pope, Koch et all don't need to wait for anything. All they need to do is get up their lazy asses, run on their doctrine and ideas, and let the people decide if they're full of shit or not. I'm tired of all these 'think tanks' like Cato, Heritage, etc. that know the solution to everything, criticize from their cozy soapbox, but don't feel like moving a finger to actually do the shit they preach.

Good Post.

[TinTin]

Is Obama proposing new tax cuts or using clinton's tax cuts or using part of bush's tax cuts for under 250k?

[SnakeBoy]

Is Obama proposing new tax cuts or using clinton's tax cuts or using part of bush's tax cuts for under 250k?

I think he's wanting to keep current tax rates for up to 250k. Which is what he calls a tax cut.

[Nbadan]

Clinton had 8 good years or so of growth at the pre-tax cut tax rate, and a projected budget surplus when he left office...a few years later with a GOP Congress and a GOP president.....government grew at a record pace, plus the Bush tax cuts, plus a global war on our kid's credit card, plus the largest unfunded expansion entitlement program in modern history and the GOP deficit chicken-hawks blame Obama for running up the debt - and people, yes you ignorant independents, are buying this crap....

[Wild Cobra]

Clinton had 8 good years or so of growth at the pre-tax cut tax rate, and a projected budget surplus when he left office...a few years later with a GOP Congress and a GOP president.....government grew at a record pace, plus the Bush tax cuts, plus a global war on our kid's credit card, plus the largest unfunded expansion entitlement program in modern history and the GOP deficit chicken-hawks blame Obama for running up the debt - and people, yes you ignorant independents, are buying this crap....
He was lucky, and this was not by his doing. There never was a surplus when you include the interest on the debt, and added expenditures outside the budget. What you speak of is strictly budgeted spending vs. revenue. We can all make a budget that includes saving money, but that doesn't mean we follow it.

When will you libtards learn the facts and stop espousing lies? The numbers don't lie. If this was true as you idiots portray, then the national debt would have declined. not increased during those few years of mythical surplus.

The later years, the whole tech market was on steroids because of the Y2K scare, and it crashed rather hard after the Y2K fear was over. then president Bush had 9/11 also.

[Nbadan]

He was lucky, and this was not by his doing. There never was a surplus when you include the interest on the debt, and added expenditures outside the budget. What you speak of is strictly budgeted spending vs. revenue. We can all make a budget that includes saving money, but that doesn't mean we follow it.

You should know about 'budgeted spending' and 'keeping things off the books', the Bush administration did that for the costs of both wars and tons of other things for the entirety of its existence....the fact remains that Clinton balance the budget, the last President to do so in modern times, and he did it with no personal tax cuts...

[Wild Cobra]

the fact remains that Clinton balance the budget, the last President to do so in modern times, and he did it with no personal tax cuts...
That does not matter. The bottom line matters.

Maybe you libtards buy into the headlines. Smart people use the bottom line.

[ElNono]

That does not matter. The bottom line matters.

Maybe you libtards buy into the headlines. Smart people use the bottom line.

What is this 'bottom line' that you speak of?
Who was the last president that did good in this abstract 'bottom line'?

[Wild Cobra]

What is this 'bottom line' that you speak of?
The increase or decrease of the debt.

Who was the last president that did good in this abstract 'bottom line'?
Nixon.

[ElNono]

The increase or decrease of the debt.
Nixon.

So it's not just a 'libtard' problem...

[ElNono]

And I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the debt also go down during Carter's government?

[ElNono]

Also, what measure are you using? Actual debt number or debt/GDP?
The reason I ask is that according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) the debt did go up during Nixon's presidency if you're just taking debt amount, and not debt/GDP.

[ChumpDumper]

Nixon????

Damn, that's funny.

[Wild Cobra]

So it's not just a 'libtard' problem...
Nixon was lucky I think. I'll bet he had an actual surplus because the demorats stopped funding the Vietnam war.

Our congress has been corrupt for decades. maybe as long as it's been in existence. There is nothing new except now it seems to be a race of which party is more corrupt. I would say the demonrats are leaving the republicans in their dust in that department.

[Nbadan]

Our congress has been corrupt for decades. maybe as long as it's been in existence. There is nothing new except now it seems to be a race of which party is more corrupt. I would say the demonrats are leaving the republicans in their dust in that department.

Nice attempt to deflect from the facts...

[Wild Cobra]

Nice attempt to deflect from the facts...

Deflection from what facts?

Nixon was the last president to have an actual debt reduction.

[Wild Cobra]

And I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the debt also go down during Carter's government?
No it didn't. The last time was I think fiscal 1969.

I've posted the government link before. Do you forget that easily?

[Wild Cobra]

Also, what measure are you using? Actual debt number or debt/GDP?
The reason I ask is that according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) the debt did go up during Nixon's presidency if you're just taking debt amount, and not debt/GDP.
Actual dollars.

During Nixon's one good year on revenue, revenue exceeded all spending and interest on the debt, thus the actual debt actually went down.

[ElNono]

Nixon was lucky I think. I'll bet he had an actual surplus because the demorats stopped funding the Vietnam war.

Our congress has been corrupt for decades. maybe as long as it's been in existence. There is nothing new except now it seems to be a race of which party is more corrupt. I would say the demonrats are leaving the republicans in their dust in that department.

Let me reiterate... This bottom line thingie... it's not just a 'libtard' problem...

[ElNono]

Actual dollars.

During Nixon's one good year on revenue, revenue exceeded all spending and interest on the debt, thus the actual debt actually went down.

So this is over a single year, not an actual term...

[Nbadan]

Nixon was just President when the budgeted net reduction occurred...that's like saying that Reagan defeated the Soviet Union because he was President when the U.S.S.R collapsed...

[Wild Cobra]

Also, what measure are you using? Actual debt number or debt/GDP?
The reason I ask is that according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) the debt did go up during Nixon's presidency if you're just taking debt amount, and not debt/GDP.
I didn't say during his presidency in the sense of from start to finish. I'm talking about one fiscal year.

[Wild Cobra]

Nixon was just President when the budgeted net reduction occurred...that's like saying that Reagan defeated the Soviet Union because he was President when the U.S.S.R collapsed...
Spin it how ever you want. The national debt actually went down during one year under the Nixion administration.

[Wild Cobra]

So this is over a single year, not an actual term...
Correct.

[Nbadan]

:sleepy

http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/FederalDeficit/FederalDeficit(1).jpg


The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Fact Check (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html)

[ElNono]

Correct.

So your argument is that 3 years of deficits, but a single year of surplus makes a person smart... OK.

BTW, you do agree this is not just a 'libtard' problem, right?

[Winehole23]

Of course not. There's no way WC's black/white manicheanism could ever be untrue. There's no neutral color to be had...


...unless, of course, WC lacks a ready excuse for being caught out in error.

(In which case, the whole universe is transformed into the night in which all cows are gray.)

[Wild Cobra]

So your argument is that 3 years of deficits, but a single year of surplus makes a person smart... OK.

BTW, you do agree this is not just a 'libtard' problem, right?
Why do you make such a stupid assumption? I only pointed out the FACT that the last time in our history we had an actual surplus was during the Nixon administration. I never attributed it to his actions.

I wish you would stop with you partisan jumps to conclusions.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course not. There's no way WC's black/white manicheanism could ever be untrue. There's no neutral color to be had...


...unless, of course, WC lacks a ready excuse for being caught out in error.

(In which case, the whole universe is transformed into the night in which all cows are gray.)
So...

You're being an idiot today also?

[ElNono]

Why do you make such a stupid assumption? I only pointed out the FACT that the last time in our history we had an actual surplus was during the Nixon administration. I never attributed it to his actions

I didn't assume anything. I actually was applying the rules you spelled out:


That does not matter. The bottom line matters.

Maybe you libtards buy into the headlines. Smart people use the bottom line.


I wish you would stop with you partisan jumps to conclusions.

Actually, I'm the one pointing out this has nothing to do with any singular party, as you originally suggested. Your admission that Nixon was the last guy to see a reduction in debt simply reinforces the notion.

[Nbadan]

More spin....

The National Debt — Where Did it Come From?


In 1981, the country had just elected Reagan to cure the "all-time-high, Trillion-Dollar debt." But compared with the size of the American economy, the debt was at its lowest point in fifty years (see graph). Reagan was duped by the "supply siders" and his "greatest disappointment" was adding $1.6 trillion to the debt.
The new zFacts slide show (info page, PDF) tells the amazing story of how supply siders have used the Republican Party to add $9.2 trillion to the debt and are now using the fear of that debt to derail the recovery.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/US-National-Debt-GDP.gif

The green line shows what would have happened if Reagan and the Bushes had just kept the debt growing at the same rate as the economy. That would make their parts flat. Many conservatives claim Congress increased Reagan's budgets, but this is not the case as you can see documented here.

ZFacts (http://zfacts.com/ebooks/whose-national-debt.pdf)

[Winehole23]

So...

You're being an idiot today also?I'm not so sure I ever stopped being one.

[Wild Cobra]

Dan, ever look at your source graph by congress?

Remember, the republicans had control of congress from 1995 to 2006. Look what the democrats did!



http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/US-National-Debt-GDP.gif (http://zfacts.com/ebooks/whose-national-debt.pdf)