Reply With Quote
Fail. The Obama administration inherited the Bush recession and big debt projections while the Bush administration inherited a mild-recession and low to no debt projections...
the war in Iraq has cost 698 billion dollars, the obama stimulis package approved 787 billion dollars
Fail. The Obama administration inherited the Bush recession and big debt projections while the Bush administration inherited a mild-recession and low to no debt projections...
Wasn't the war in Iraq supposed to be entirely paid for by oil revenues generated by Iran itself?
Your talking about only the costs so far, the war ain't over yet and all those disabled vets will have to be taken care of the rest of their lives...not to talk about the shattered families they left behind..
Obama did not inherit a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit.
Looking at the numbers for 2000 and 2001 and the years from 2002 through 2006, it's pretty hard to deny that the combination of a Republican White House and Republican Congressional control took budget surpluses and turned them into budget deficits on a consistent basis, isn't it?
Yep, this debt would have happened if McCain was in the WH too....probably worse because he would have been more likely to try more tax cuts for the rich and Oligarchies...
No doubt. Republicans did not walk their talk. That's a large part of the reason why they got kicked out in the manner they did. W's "compassionate conservatism" was in reality nothing more than "pro-life, pro-war liberal spending" and for the most part, republicans didn't have a problem with it. The only reason that anyone out there is giving them even an ounce of credibility now is that Obama's making W look like the fiscal conservative that he wasn't.
All that being said, I am glad to see that Obama has gotten behind this debt commission and I hope that means he is serious about getting this problem under control. If he delivers, I will give him credit for it. Just like the credit I give Bill Clinton for his handling of the budget.
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 01-25-2010 at 10:08 PM.
Well, at least your being kinda honest, but do you really want to ins ute Hoover-like policies while we continue to try and work ourselves out of a recession?
Don't know about him, but Obama does (meaning you do too):
Unimaginable stupidity
So the Obama Administration is preparing to announce a freeze on Federal discretionary spending through 2013.
And they are proposing it in the middle of a the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
Apparently, it's a political decision made in response to a single election. Great. A single U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts is now dictating fiscal policy for the next three years.
It might at least make some sense if it were a smart political decision. But there's nothing to suggest that it's anything but unalloyed idiocy.
Obama Embraces Hooverism
There are no words to describe how disastrous this news is from TPM:President Obama will propose freezing non-security discretionary government spending for the next three years, a sweeping plan to attempt deficit reduction that will save taxpayers $250 billion over 10 years.When the administration releases its budget next week, the discretionary spending for government agencies from Health and Human Services to the Department of Treasury will be frozen at its 2010 level in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013.This is a massive mistake. No matter what you think of Obama's performance on the health care bill, or any other issue in 2009, if he sticks to his guns on this, the recession will get much worse, and Democrats will likely lose both Congress and the White House in 2012.
A senior administration official detailed the move, speaking on a condition of anonymity because Obama will announce his decision during his State of the Union address Wednesday night....
Exempted from the freeze would be Pentagon funding, and the budgets for Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security.
Why do I say this? Because there is no ing way that this country will experience economic recovery without greater federal spending. Instead of the sensible PAYGO rules that Pelosi brought into force in 2007, which produce responsible spending by identifying new revenues, Obama is panicking and giving into the Larry Summers/Robert Rubin neoliberal argument that somehow, a lack of government spending will produce economic growth. Instead of embracing Keynes, he is embracing Hoover.
Of course, with the baseline already on record levels, a freeze is actually bad news from a deficit perspective - especially considering how limited it is. And probably Obama won't keep up his word anyway.
I just want to note that Obama has gone beyond his customary flip-floping on campaign promises: he's openly embracing a McCain proposal that he bashed in the campaign.
This man is a pathological liar.
Oh, and for the record, Hoover was doing okay till he decided to start spending like a drunken sailor. Are you familiar with FDR's platform when he campaigned vs. Hoover, Nbadan?
Daily KOS? Really? Obama may decrease descretionary spending, but that money will go into other programs, such as one that is being proposed to increase the child tax credit...that money has to be made up somewhere
Amendment is good, actual bill... not so much. The amendment is only there to make the bill more palatable, and the 'commission' probably won't turn out to be anything near what we're hoping. Without further clarification, no, the bill shouldn't pass.
"698 billion dollars"
way too low. At least $1T committed now (the Pentagan doesn't do accounting), and another $1T over the next 5 decades in care for vets (if the US cares for them). All of the Iraq $$ have been wasted, burned up, with no return and 4000+ wasted dead military, with more to come.
"the obama stimulis package approved 787 billion dollars"
much of the TARP funds will be paid back, with interest at a profit.
While Magic Negro wouldn't have invade Iraq, the Repugs started TARP, would have continued it, and probably would have done their own stimulus.
CG: Well, it was fun while it lasted............
************
Senate likely to reject idea of deficit task force
WASHINGTON – The Senate is likely to reject a White House-backed plan to establish a bipartisan task force to recommend steps to curb the deficit, even as lawmakers digest the news that President Barack Obama wants a three-year freeze in the domestic budgets they control.
Fresh numbers arriving Tuesday morning from the Congressional Budget Office are expected to bring continued bad news on the deficit, keeping the pressure on Obama and congressional Democrats to demonstrate they're serious about taking on the flood of red ink.
The spending freeze, expected to be proposed by Obama during the State of the Union address on Wednesday, would apply to a relatively small portion of the federal budget, affecting a $477 billion pot of money available for domestic agencies whose budgets are approved by Congress each year. Some of those agencies could get increases, others would have to face cuts; such programs got an almost 10 percent increase this year. The federal budget total was $3.5 trillion.
The freeze on so-called discretionary programs would have only a modest impact on a deficit expected to match last year's $1.4 trillion. The steps needed to really tackle the deficit include tax increases and curbs on benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
That's the idea driving the Obama-backed plan to create a special task force to come up with a plan to curb the spiraling budget deficit. But the Senate sponsors of the plan say it's attracted too much opposition from the right and left to prevail.
Republicans say the panel — it would try to develop a deficit reduction blueprint after the November elections for a vote before the new Congress convenes — would lead to big tax hikes. Democratic opponents say they don't want to vote on proposals to cut benefit programs like Social Security without being able to shape the plan.
Obama's three-year spending freeze will be part of the budget Obama will submit Feb. 1, senior administration officials said, commenting on condition of anonymity to reveal unpublished details.
It's likely to confront opposition on Capitol Hill, where a handful of powerful lawmakers write 12 annual appropriations bills. They've gotten used to hefty increases but now are being asked to tighten their belts. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., declined to comment, his spokesman said.
The Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and the Homeland Security Department would be exempt from the freeze.
The savings would be small at first, perhaps $10 billion to $15 billion, one official said. But over the coming decade, savings would add up to $250 billion.
The White House is under considerable pressure to cut deficits — the red ink hit a record $1.4 trillion this year — or at least keep them from growing. Encouraged by last week's Massachusetts Senate victory, Republicans are hitting hard on the issue, and polls show voters increasingly concerned.
Sen. John McCain, who lost to Obama in last year's presidential election, said he supports any attempt to cut discretionary domestic spending. "We need to do so," he said Tuesday.
But in an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America," the Arizona Republican said Obama "has got to veto bills that are laden with pork-barrel spending, earmarks."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100126/...s_obama_budget
As it turns out, the amendment wasn't even that palatable. You can bet that the bill will pass though. There should be a good fight about it though. Republicans would love to get that $1.9T raise in the limit chopped down so as to hopefully force Obama & Co into needing to ask for another one right around election time. Democrats of course want no part of that.
Double fail. Of the ~1.8 trillion dollar deficit, the CBO estimates that ~1.2 trillion are due to Bush-era policies and the remainder are Obama policies. Additionally, you are using Bush's first term as a measuring stick which is unfair considering when he came in there was no deficit spending. What was the net effect of his first term on the national debt?
On Topic: I would LOVE this commission to be created, and to have to reconvene with the rule of law intact every 4 years or so. NO amendments? What a glorious day that would be.
Okay, I'll rephrase. Obama racked up more debt in his first year than Bush did in his second term. We can split hairs all you want but at the end of the day the result is the same. This is still the most fiscally irresponsible administration ever.
I won't disagree with you based on the projected budget deficits going from this year and beyond, though before I agree with you I would like to see a similar graph for deficit spending as a % of GDP in past recessions.
Also, I would like to see similar graphs of deficit spending as a % of GDP for boom times to compare to Bush's spending. I don't think that you can look at just spending, but also you must line them up with "environmental factors" such as why aren't we paying down debt when we have the ability to.
A month? I think you're being generous. More like a in' week.
Looks like all that information can be found here. And I agree with you that while the economy was booming between 2003-2007 Bush and the republicans should have been far more budget conscious than they were. I didn't like the deficits Bush was running up which means I really don't like the ones Obama is running up, seeing as how Obama's 2009 & 2010 numbers are still 2 to 3 times worse than anything Bush ever put up. This whole thing really makes me miss Bill Clinton..........
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...olor=c&local=s
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 01-26-2010 at 11:19 AM.
Cool, I will take a look later on today, but I do have to say that the Obama numbers might be 2-3 times more than Bush's, but may not be worse. If you lose your job, you are far more likely to have deficit spending, now matter what you do. It is when you have deficit spending right after you got a promotion and are making a ton of money that is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
I will say that once I have a look, it won't matter anyway, because it will just be my opinion of who is more fiscally irresponsible. I have to answer the question "To me, is it more fiscally irresponsible to have 400-500 billion in deficit spending when you are flush with cash, or to have 1-1.3 billion when you aren't." To me it is a closer race than it obviously is to you.
Oh, and I miss Bill Clinton too. I would elect him to a 3rd term given the chance, but I think you miss him as a lesser of two evils whereas I genuinely miss him as a president. I just took a quick look at the link you gave me (I thought it would be more info). I am a little confused because it looks like deficit spending peaked in 07-08 timefram and has started a downward slope into the Obama years. I am not naive enough to think this slope will be permanent and may reverse this year. It surprises me, however.
Last edited by Drachen; 01-26-2010 at 11:36 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
